Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly investigate defects at a neighbouring property, which he says caused damage to his home. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate and address serious issues arising from a neighbouring dangerous structure. Mr X wants the Council to carry out full inspections, investigate building works and water ingress, and take appropriate enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate defects linked to disrepair of a neighbouring structure, including subsidence, falling soffits, and water ingress, which he said has caused damage to his property. He also said the Council wrongly refused to share inspection records or take enforcement action despite safety concerns. He further alleged the neighbour, and contractors entered his property without consent amounting to trespass and Anti-social Behaviour.
8. The Council inspected the neighbouring property and concluded it did not meet the threshold for action under dangerous structure or building control powers. It confirmed the structure was exempt from Building Regulations.
9. An Environmental Health Officer also visited in response to concerns about water run-off and sent an advisory letter to Mr X’s neighbour.
10. The Council refused to disclose inspection records, citing General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and it advised Mr X that allegations of trespass, access disputes, damage, and liability are civil matters between private individuals to which they cannot intervene.
11. 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 Mr X disagrees with the decision.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered the matter, concluded it did not meet the threshold for enforcement action, and acted within its discretionary powers. Further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
13. Regarding Mr X’s concerns the Council wrongly refused to disclose inspection records under GDPR. We will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider these issues.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman