Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending building act warning letters about a potentially dangerous chimney stack. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council sending him three Building Act 1984 warning letters over a joint chimney stack with his neighbours. He says the letters were contradictory and assisted his neighbours in taking court action over the chimney which he says has led to costs to him of over £25,000.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council issued Building Act 1984 notices to him and his neighbour over a joint chimney stack which his neighbour reported as being dangerous. He says the Council threatened court action unless he took action to alter or remove it. Two subsequent letters issued after inspections by third party consultants reduced the concern to an advisory one. Mr X says this encouraged his neighbour to take court action to have the works carried out.
6. The Council says it served the letters because its primary duty under the Building Act is to ensure safety of the public and building occupants. Once the investigations had been carried out it was satisfied that there was minimal risk as the chimney was on private property away from the highway. It was also satisfied that both parties were aware of the condition of the chimney and any future risk it presented so it decided on no further action.
7. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council favoured either party in the matter and the current civil action by the neighbours against Mr X could have taken place with or without the involvement of the Council.
8. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending building act warning letters about a potentially dangerous chimney stack. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman