Summary: Ms X complained about a Dangerous Structure Notice issued by the Council and its subsequent actions. We have found fault by the Council in its communication with Ms X about the Notice causing frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed action to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a Dangerous Structure Notice issued by the Council for a rear boundary wall and its subsequent action in erecting safety fencing around the wall without enough notice. Ms X says the Council failed to provide necessary information to consider whether to accept or dispute the Notice and unreasonably delayed dealing with her complaint. Ms X also complains the Council has refused to place recovery action for the costs of fencing on hold in accordance with its published complaint procedure.
2. Ms X says because of the Council’s actions her organisation suffered avoidable reputational harm, legal costs and fencing costs of £12,000. Ms X also says she has spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter and residents suffered avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

8. The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (as amended) Part VII ‘the Act’ deals with ‘Dangerous and Neglected Structures’ and provides local authorities in London with the power to survey, secure, repair, or demolish structures deemed to represent a safety risk to the public. It provides legal procedures for enforcing safety, including serving notices on owners, and remains applicable in specific London boroughs.
9. Part VII section 62(2) of the Act sets out that the Council may shore up or otherwise secure the structure and may erect hording or fencing and serve notice in writing on the owner or occupier of the structure requiring them forthwith to take down, repair or otherwise secure it as the case requires. There is no requirement to serve prior notice of any Council action to make the structure safe.
10. Section 63 of the Act sets out the right of the owner within seven days of receipt of such a notice to require that the dispute be referred to arbitration.
11. Section 66 of the Act sets out that all expenses incurred by the Council in respect of any dangerous structure shall be paid by the owner of the structure.
12. The owner of the structure at the time of the events set out below was a local charity. Ms X is acting on behalf of that organisation.

What happened

13. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
14. The Council received a report of a potentially dangerous structure on 15 June 2024. This set out that the state of a wall between cottages and a school was declining and posed a safety risk.
15. The Council visited the site on 26 June and a qualified building control surveyor completed a visual inspection and decided the wall was unsafe.
16. The Council sent a Dangerous Structure Notice ‘the Notice’ to the owners of the wall by first class post on 22 July. This was issued under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (as amended) Part VII ‘the Act’.
17. The Notice was addressed to Ms X at the correct address. It set out that the Council had been made aware a rear boundary wall had deteriorated and was considered to be in a dangerous condition and the Council considered the wall to be unstable and dangerous. The Notice required Ms X to survey, take down, repair or otherwise secure the structure to remove the danger of the wall falling or otherwise becoming unstable. The Notice set out that:

• the owner could, within seven days from receipt of the Notice, require the dispute to be referred to arbitration under section 63 of the Act
• failure to comply with the Notice could result in application to the Magistrates’ Court for an order requiring the owner to undertake repair works
• failure to comply with such an order could result in the Council carrying out the works in default and recharging the owner for these
• in any such proceedings the Council would seek to recover all its costs
• all fees and expenses incurred in respect of the dangerous structure including the fee for the service of notices, surveys by the Building Control Manager, summonses, orders and the costs of any works executed by the Council including the cost of any hoarding, fencing, shoring, etc. were recoverable from the owner and a demand for payment would be made in due course

18. A representative acting for the owner contacted the Council on 26 July to say the owner had not received the above Notice. It was explained that the wall had been surveyed in February 2024 and their surveyor had not considered the wall had deteriorated to an extent it posed potential danger to the public and had recommended that if repair was not imminent it should be inspected on a periodic basis. It was confirmed that they had arranged for an inspection every six months and were happy to pay for any fencing that the Council considered was required as they wanted to ensure members of the public and their own residents were safe. The Council sent a copy of the Notice by email the same day.
19. The Council also completed a second inspection of the wall on 26 July. This was for the Council to act on the above assessment and meet with its contractors to agree the extent of work required immediately. It was decided that the wall needed to be fenced off for safety purposes without delay. The Council’s contractors were available on the day and fencing to exclude public access was the only option due to the protected heritage status of the wall.
20. The Council sent an email to Ms X on 29 July to explain the wall had historical significance which was why it had dealt with the matter through fencing the area and planning permission may be required to undertake repair works. The Council confirmed it would take no further action in relation to the Notice as the fencing made the area safe and it would close the dangerous structure file.
21. Ms X emailed the Council on 23 August asking for a copy of its inspection report outlining which areas the Council deemed unsafe as it could not decide whether to dispute this decision without sight of the report. Ms X emailed the Council on 5 September seeking a meeting between her own surveyor and the Council’s surveyor. This meeting did not take place.
22. Ms X complained to the Council on 23 September about Council officers entering the property on Friday 26 July to erect fencing around the wall on the alleged grounds it was dangerous. Ms X said the action was unjustified and that although it needed repair regular professional surveys had indicated it was safe. Ms X noted the first they were made aware of the issue was during a telephone call on 26 July which advised the Council would be installing fencing with reference to a Dangerous Structure Notice that had not been received. There was a further telephone call from the Council the same day to say that due to the time needed to apply for planning permission to repair the wall of historical significance the Council had arranged fencing to be installed and there would be a charge. The charity was only made aware on Monday 29 July that these works had been carried out on 26 July. Ms X said this caused alarm and distress to residents. Ms X also complained that a requested meeting between the Council’s surveyor and her own surveyor on 9 September did not take place as agreed. Ms X sought an inspection to confirm the wall was not unsafe and the fencing removed with adequate notice, an acknowledgement the Council’s actions were unjustified and had wasted staff and trustee time, with an acknowledgement of poor communication. Ms X wanted an apology to residents and the Charity and £500.
23. The Council completed a third inspection on 30 September. This noted the fencing had been put up on both sides of the wall but there was no evidence of any works to the wall.
24. The Council issued an Urgent Works Notice to Ms X on 4 October requiring remedial works by 19 October. The Council received a letter from the charity’s solicitor on 17 October to set out their surprise to receive such a notice given the Council’s email of 29 July which had said the matter was closed. This also noted the ownership of the property was being transferred with an expected completion date of 31 December 2024. Ms X has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the Urgent Works Notice was not progressed by the Council as it accepted the matter was being progressed appropriately and the property was due to be transferred.
25. The Council sent an invoice dated 25 October to Ms X for £11,263.36 in relation to the dangerous structure. This was for the dangerous structure call out for a dangerous wall and to install fencing in accordance with the Act.
26. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 29 October. The Council explained that its first inspection of the condition of the wall with its proximity to the local school resulted in its decision action was needed under the emergency provisions of the Act. The wall was considered to be dangerous as parts of it had already collapsed and the Council was aware the historical importance of the wall meant it could not give instructions for its demolition. Therefore, the Council took alternative action to protect vulnerable residents and any children from the school. The Council advised it did not hold the history of the condition of the wall and had to make judgements about the stability of the structure from its inspection. This had noted part of the wall had already collapsed destroying the integrity of the structure. There was also evidence of neglect over many years with substantial plants growing within the wall and the looseness of the materials within the wall led to the conclusion the wall was dangerous and the remaining parts could follow the previous collapses. This resulted in the formal notice being served. In response to Ms X’s concern that requests to meet with officers were ignored, the Council advised there was a process to apply for planning permission and building control officers would not be involved in any repair specification. The Council did not uphold the complaint but as a lesson learned would work on its communication with owners.
27. Ms X wrote to the Council on 9 November as she remained unhappy with its response above. Ms X noted the above response should have been provided by 21 October under the Council’s complaint policy. Ms X raised the following outstanding issues:

• the Council entered the property without proper notice or warning – Ms X did not accept the Council had knocked on residents’ doors as these were numbered 1 to 7 and the Council referred to knocking on doors numbered 3 to 9
• the Council had not recorded the above action and was aware the properties were not owner occupied
• if the door knocking was on the day the fencing was erected then it did not constitute adequate prior notice and if it was before then the Council had time to identify and notify the owner
• Ms X sought the date of the first inspection, the qualifications of the officer and the inspection report which remained outstanding
• Ms X disputed part of the wall had collapsed although accepted plants growing within it and was in need of repair
• residents were upset by the fencing works being undertaken without notice
• the Council had instructed works costing £11,263.36 without a thorough report
• attempts to arrange a meeting with a planning officer and surveyor were ignored
• the Council did not advise during its telephone discussion on 26 July that fencing was to be erected that day and Ms X had only discovered this from complaints from residents on the following Monday 29 July
• Ms X disputed the wall was in a dangerous state as evidenced by the qualified surveyor reports commissioned over the previous 18 months which the Council had not sought
• the Council had details of the ownership of the wall from previous contact with the planning team but could also have identified the relevant contact from their website or through conducting a Land Registry search
• Ms X sought the following: a reinspection to confirm the wall was not unsafe; the removal of the fencing with proper notice; an acknowledgement the Council’s actions were not justified; an acknowledgement its communication had been poor including in its complaint response; an apology to residents; a public apology to the charity for the damage to its reputation and £500 as gesture of goodwill.

28. The Council provided a final response to Ms X’s complaint on 6 May 2025. This confirmed it was the professional judgement of the Council’s surveyor that immediate action was required to make the wall safe and there had not been time to contact the property owner before this visit and action. The Council considered it had acted in accordance with the Act. It had completed a visual inspection of the wall, completed a report, provided notices to the residents and staff prior to taking action and ensuring the wall was made safe. The Council apologised that it had not provided a copy of the original inspection report. The Council said it had issued a reminder to relevant staff that it was important to ensure reports were shared in a timely manner once inspections had been completed. The Council noted that a person receiving a dangerous structure notice could appeal this under section 102 and section 103 of the Building Act 1984. The Council acknowledged that Ms X’s meeting requests had not been acted on due to the quick turnaround in ensuring the structure was made safe. The Council said it had reminded relevant staff of the importance of ensuring clear communications.
29. The Council emailed Ms X on 5 June to say it would not place the invoice on hold as its complaint procedure was exhausted. Ms X responded to the Council to note she had complained to the Ombudsman on 4 June in line with the Council’s complaint procedure and so this had not been completed and the invoice should be placed on hold.
30. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 June 2025.
31. Ms X has confirmed that the transfer of ownership to a different charity was completed on 1 August 2025. This transfer included a cost agreement in relation to the wall.
32. Ms X also confirmed the Council had not taken any further action about the invoice issued on 25 October 2024.

Analysis

33. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
34. I cannot decide whether the wall was a dangerous structure. This was a matter for the professional judgement of the Council officers at the time. The Council has followed the process set out in the relevant legislation when issuing the Notice and is entitled under that legislation to charge Ms X for the associated costs.
35. I also cannot say Ms X failed to receive a copy of the Notice posted on 22 July 2024 due to any fault by the Council. In any event, the Council provided a copy by email on 26 July. Ms X had a seven day period to request the matter be referred to arbitration from receipt of the Notice.
36. Ms X suggests she was not able to do as the Council did not provide a copy of its inspection report which set out its reasons for the wall being deemed dangerous. However, Ms X did not request a copy of the inspection report until 23 August. This was well outside of the seven day period from receipt for requesting arbitration. So, although the Council has accepted it failed to provide details of its inspection as requested, I cannot say this prejudiced Ms X’s right to refer the dispute to arbitration. I am satisfied Ms X had sufficient information from her own surveyor to have done so at the time. I also note the conversation with the Council on 26 July suggested the charity had accepted the Council’s action of fencing the area and that they would incur a cost for this work. If Ms X wished to dispute the Notice and associated costs it would have been prudent to have asked for the matter to proceed to arbitration as set out in the Notice at the time.
37. There is no requirement under the relevant legislation to provide prior notification of any works considered necessary by a council to make a structure safe. I cannot say the Council acted with fault in not providing prior notice. The legislation also sets out the ability of a council to charge any expenses related to the dangerous structure to the owner.
38. However, I am satisfied there were failures in the way the Council communicated with Ms X and, taken together, I consider these represent fault which will have caused a degree of frustration and inconvenience to Ms X.
39. The Council’s Stage 2 response says the report was received on 26 June 2024. This is incorrect. The date of the report provided to the Ombudsman by the Council is dated 15 June 2024. The Council’s response also stated that a site inspection was made on the same day as the report and noted that it conducted site visits as a priority and at the earliest opportunity when receiving reports of potentially dangerous structures. However, there was a delay between the report on 15 June and the first inspection by the Council on 26 June. The Council’s response also says that notices were sent to residents by post on 22 July 2024. However, the Council has advised the Ombudsman that a notice was only posted to Ms X and the school on this date.

40. The Council further stated there was no time to contact the owner before its inspection visit on 26 June. As set out above there was a period of 10 days between the Council receiving the report and visiting the property. I also note the report sent to the Council set out the ownership of the wall and provided details of a previous planning application determination which would also have identified the relevant contact details.
41. In its response to the Ombudsman the Council explained the apparent delay between the inspection on 26 June and notice being served on 22 July was as the immediately unsafe aspect of the wall had been remedied by the inspecting surveyor removing loose bricks by hand. Beyond that it was not considered that the structure was likely to suffer from immediate further collapse. However, the safety of the wall would not be sustainable and so a dangerous structure notice would need to be served for compliance during the school holidays before the start of the next term.
42. Therefore, the Council had a good opportunity to contact Ms X at any point between the report on 15 June, its inspection on 26 June, posting the Notice on 22 July and erecting the fencing on 26 July. I consider it would have been good practice to have done so although the relevant legislation does not require any prior notification.
43. The Council’s complaint response also set out that Ms X had a right of appeal under the Building Act 1984 about the Notice. It is unclear if this would apply to a Notice served under the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (as amended) Part VII. In any event, this right of appeal was not included in the Notice itself only the right to request arbitration.
44. The Council has acknowledged Ms X’s meeting requests were not acted on due to the short timescale involved in making the wall safe. I note Ms X’s requests related to arranging a meeting with her surveyor in September which was after the action had been taken. I do not consider any fault here has caused an injustice to Ms X as the decision had already been made about the wall and the arbitration process was the appropriate mechanism for any dispute about this.
45. There was delay by the Council in responding to Ms X’s complaint.
46. I do not propose to investigate further the issue raised by Ms X about whether the Council should have proceeded with recovery action before the outcome of her complaint to the Ombudsman as Ms X has confirmed no such action was taken.
47. I have found no grounds to suggest any reputational harm to the charity was as a result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Action

48. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Ms X to apologise for the poor communication in relation to the Dangerous Structure Notice issued and delay in dealing with her subsequent complaint; and
2. make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £300 to recognise her frustration and inconvenience.
49. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman