Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a dangerous structure. This is because the injustice Mr and Mrs X claim stems from the actions of their neighbour rather than any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council delayed in dealing with their neighbour about a dangerous structure. They also complain the Council ignored the information they provided and threatened to issue them with a ‘dangerous structure’ notice, failed to respond to their correspondence and did not properly deal with their subject access request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council became aware of a possible dangerous structure on Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour’s property in 2023. It did not take any formal action at the time as it was satisfied the neighbour intended to carry out the works required to make it safe. However, the neighbour did not carry out the required works until late 2024 and Mr and Mrs X say this caused them stress and worry, impacting on Mrs X’s health.
7. Before the neighbour began the works Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council for advice. They say the officer was rude and continually interrupted and spoke over them. They also say the officer threatened to issue them with a notice based on incorrect information from the neighbour, which Mr X suggests damaged his reputation.
8. The Council did not however issue any notices to Mr and Mrs X or the neighbour, and the work to repair the structure is now complete.
9. While Mr and Mrs X claim injustice from the length of time it took the neighbour to complete the work we could not hold the Council responsible for this. This is because the delays are the result of their neighbour’s actions and not any fault by the Council.
10. Formal enforcement action is a last resort and the Council has confirmed it was satisfied the structure did not warrant immediate action and that the neighbour had provided evidence to show they intended to carry out the repairs required. There was therefore no need to issue a dangerous structure notice. The Council’s decision on this point is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to question it. We cannot therefore say the decision amounted to fault and we cannot recommend remedies for the impact of a council’s actions on someone’s health; this is essentially a personal injury claim and as such, it is more appropriate for the courts.
11. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X were concerned about the officer’s statement in late 2024 that it may issue them a dangerous structure notice, given the delays in completing the work, but it did not actually do so. We could not say it was fault for the Council to advise Mr and Mrs X of the possibility it may issue a notice and even if we could, we could not say this caused Mr and Mrs X significant injustice. This is because the Council confirmed to Mr and Mrs X they did not need to take any action just one week later. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X experienced some distress and concern as a result of the officer’s statement, as well as going to time and trouble to respond to it, but I do not consider this is significant enough to warrant further investigation or any financial remedy.
12. Mr and Mrs X have raised concerns both about the Council’s handling of their ‘subject access request’ and about a possible breach of the General Data Protection Regulation. But the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider these issues and if it finds the Council has not dealt with these issues as it should, Mr and Mrs X may seek compensation at court.
13. Mr and Mrs X are also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with their complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr and Mrs X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman