Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her concerns about the safety of the building she lives. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council responded to her concerns about the safety of the building she lives in following a building survey causing her distress and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. Ms X says the Council should be ensuring the management company takes the appropriate action so the building is safe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Law and guidance

6. Under section 77 of the Building Act 1984 (Dangerous building- emergency measures) if it appears to a council that a building or structure is in such a condition to be dangerous it may apply to the appropriate court or tribunal for an order requiring the owner to take such works as necessary to remove the danger, demolish the structure or restrict the use of the building or structure until such works have been done. The Council may take the necessary action itself if a person fails to comply with the order within the time specified. The Council can recover the costs incurred.
7. Under Section 78 of the Building Act 1984 (Dangerous building- emergency measures) the Council can take immediate action to remove a building or structure if it considers it is in dangerous state and a risk to public safety. The Council does not require the owner’s permission or consent to discharge this function of the Building Act 1984. But it does try to give reasonable notice of the intention to carry out the emergency works to the owner/occupier of the building. The Council can recover the cost of the works from the owner/occupier.

What happened in this case

8. What follows is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I reviewed as part of the investigation.
9. Ms X lives in a block of flats and is a leaseholder of a flat. The flats are managed by a residents’ property management company I will refer to as Company B and a private block management company I will refer to as Company C.
10. In August 2024 Ms X complained to the Council Company B had commissioned a building survey showing parts of the building needed work doing to them. Ms X had asked Company B to commission a full structural survey to show how safe the building was, but it refused. Ms X complained Company B were mismanaging the property putting the residents at risk and asked the Council to act to ensure Company B dealt with the matter appropriately. The Council’s Building Control service responded to Ms X, advised it could only become involved if it was a dangerous building and gave information on how to report it if necessary.
11. Ms X provided further information to support her concerns. Ms X said the building needed urgent work doing to it and Company B was refusing to share the building insurance policy and survey with the leaseholders of the flats. Ms X asked the Council to check the insurance policy and survey to ensure the building was safe.
12. Building Control asked an officer, Officer D, from the High-Rise Building Service to respond to Ms X. Officer D met with Ms X to discuss her complaint and gave advice on the building insurance and her rights as a leaseholder. Officer D asked Company B to send a copy of the building survey and insurance to see if the Council needed to intervene or not. Company B provided information.
13. Officer D wrote to Ms X in September 2024 to confirm the building was insured although they had not seen the insurance policy. But it would be for Company B to ensure the building was appropriately insured as it was accountable. And it was not something the Council had the right to investigate further.
14. Officer D did not consider the survey showed a risk of such severity that the building was likely to suffer full or partial collapse. So, the officer was satisfied the current conditions of the building were not likely to be sufficient to trigger the duties of Building Control under s77 or s78 of the Building Act 1984 in relation to a ‘dangerous’ building. The survey showed four matters requiring urgent attention and 21 items needing essential remedial work within next two years. But it would be for Company B and Company C to follow up on the survey recommendations. Officer D said they would tell Building Control of their decision for a final determination on whether the Council should take any action. Officer D gave Ms X further advice about the leaseholder and management board relationship.
15. Officer E in Building Control considered the building survey and information from Officer D, agreed with the conclusion and closed the case in Building Control.
16. Ms X pursued matters about the building with Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) as she had concerns about fire safety at the building because of the 2024 building survey. A safety officer from the FRS carried out an inspection of the building in March 2025. Officer D also attended the inspection.
17. Ms X contacted the Council again in April 2025 as she was still concerned about issues at the building which had not been resolved and the response of the FRS to her complaint. The matter was considered by Officer F in the Building Control service.
18. Officer F considered Officer D had dealt with the matter comprehensively and confirmed the structural safety matters were for Company B and Company C to resolve within the set timeframes. Officer F agreed the reported conditions of the building were not enough of a severe risk to trigger s77 or s78 of the Building Act 1984 and be a dangerous building. Officer F told Ms X she could instruct her own structural engineer to survey the building if she wished to rebut the survey findings and to come back to the Council if the situation changed. Officer F said the fire safety issues had been responded to by the FRS and Building Control closed Ms X’s enquiry.

Complaint to Council 2025

19. Ms X complained to the Council in May 2025 she had been in contact with many Council departments including Building Control, Environmental Health and Housing about her building safety concerns. Ms X felt the Council ignored her concerns and evidence so reached a wrong assessment about the safety of her building. Ms X said the Council should enforce Company B and Company C to take action at the building to deal with the risks highlighted by the building survey. Ms X said she was unhappy with the inspection of the building by the FRS and considered there were still fire safety matters to be resolved.
20. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in June 2025. It confirmed that either the Council or FRS have responsibility for fire safety in buildings or multiple flats. In this case the FRS agreed to be the lead investigating agency. The FRS had carried out a building inspection in March 2025, with Company B present. The FRS assessed the risks and decided not to take enforcement action. The Council had accepted the assessment by the FRS.
21. The Council confirmed its Environmental Health Service had responded following contact from Ms X. But did not consider the reported nuisance was directly impacting on residential premises so would not be taking any action.
22. The Council advised the Building Control officer, Officer E had visited the building to assess it in view of the building survey and Ms X’s concerns. But did not consider it met the criteria as a dangerous building for the Council to take enforcement action. While Ms X wanted the Council to take enforcement action it considered the officers involved were suitably qualified, had the necessary experience to assess the evidence provided, understood their legal powers and would take enforcement action where appropriate.
23. The Council said Officer D was the principal officer involved with the case and had responded promptly to Ms X’s emails with detailed information and analysis. Officer D sent Ms X advice on her concerns about leaseholder rights and building insurance. The Council accepted Officer D had not responded to Ms X on one occasion due to considering the matters already responded to. Officer D had responded Ms X’s subsequent contact and copied the file note showing their consideration of the representations to show why a response was not required. The Council was satisfied Officer D had spent time considering the concerns and had visited the building. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
24. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. Ms X said following her complaint to the FRS it agreed to carry out an impartial reassessment of the building by a safety officer due to concern about the outcome of the previous assessment. Ms X asked the Council to review the outcome of its complaint response due to this. Ms X asked for a copy of Officer E’s visit to the building and assessment as she had been unaware it had taken place. Ms X considered Council services had ignored her emails.
25. The Council responded to Ms X in August 2025. It acknowledged the FRS had agreed to do an impartial reassessment of the fire safety of the building because of Ms X’s complaints. As the FRS were the lead agency in this case the Council would assist the FRS if necessary, following the reassessment. The Council confirmed Officer E had not carried out a site visit. But Officer E had been in contact with Officer D and based on evidence supplied had decided the issues did not confer such a severe risk to be regarded as a dangerous building. The Council apologised for the error in the previous complaint about the visit but given the evidence available it had not been considered necessary for Officer E to carry out an inspection.
26. The Council acknowledged Ms X had sent numerous emails to different Council services. Ultimately Officer D had been the lead officer and so communicated on behalf of the Council. The Council said it would ensure that if a similar situation arose with multiple emails to services it would arrange for one officer to send a comprehensive response to reduce email traffic and provide clarity to a complainant.
27. Ms X remains unhappy with the Council’s response and considers the Council has been provided with enough evidence to show Company B are ignoring safety issues resulting in safety concerns at her building. Ms X says the Council is legally responsible for ensuring Company B take the necessary actions and could have resolved that matters in August 2024.

My assessment

28. The evidence I have seen shows the Council has responded to the concerns Ms X has raised about the safety of the building she resides in. The Council does not consider the survey shows the building has such a severe risk to be considered dangerous with a need for it to act. I appreciate this is disappointing for Ms X and she disagrees with the Council’s conclusion. But the decision about the state of the building is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. We cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
29. This is because the officers considered the information provided including the building survey and Ms X’s evidence. An officer from the High-Rise Building service also visited the site and officers concluded there were no grounds for the Council to act under s 77 or s 78 of the Building Act 1984. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided it was not required to take any further action about the condition of the building. The Council is aware the FRS is to reassess the building and it says it will support the outcome if any further action is to be taken.
30. The Council has accepted that it referred to Officer E visiting the building to inspect it when that did not happen. The documents show that it was Officer D who visited the site and saw the building. It is unfortunate the Council referred to the wrong officer making a visit and this was an oversight. But as Officer D visited the site and sent the outcome of the inspection to Officer E I do not consider this affected the outcome of the Council’s decision not to take any action over the condition of the building.
31. The documents provided show the officers responded to Ms X’s concerns and Officer D sent detailed responses to her concerns. So, I do not consider there is evidence the Council ignored Ms X’s contact as alleged. The Council has explained why Officer D did not respond to one of Ms X’s emails as it was considered a detailed response had already been sent which answered her concerns. The officer subsequently sent Ms X a further detailed response so I do not consider I can achieve anything further for Ms X on this issue.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no fault by the Council in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman