Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because the complaint is late, the courts are better placed to determine any dispute over the Council’s costs and it would be reasonable for the complainants to make a claim against the Council for their losses at court.

The complaint

1. Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z complain about the Council’s actions in relation to the demolition of their property in 2023. They say the Council acted without providing sufficient notification, fabricated evidence and are pursuing them for costs of more than £100,000 with additional administrative charges they believe to be unlawful. They also claim ongoing costs and financial losses relating to the demolition.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z’s representative (Ms B) and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council demolished the property in December 2023 and issued an invoice for its costs in March 2024. Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z were aware of the Council’s actions and its costs by at least this point but did not complain to us about them until February 2026. The complaint is therefore late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it now.
7. However, even if we did find reasons to exercise our discretion there are other reasons not to investigate and these largely relate to the injustice the complainants claim, and the alternative remedy for the issue provided by Section 78 of the Building Act 1984.
8. Section 78 allows the Council to take immediate action to remove a danger caused by a building or structure and to recover its expenses in doing so from the owner. This is the basis under which the Council has invoiced Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z for more than £100,000. The complainants have however declined to pay the invoice and the Council has therefore set out its intention to add administrative costs of 20% to the amount owed.
9. The complainants dispute the basis for the Council’s costs and say the Council did not serve proper notice on them in advance of the demolition. They believe the Council’s threats to add additional costs is unlawful.
10. Section 78(5) allows the court to consider whether the Council should have proceeded under non-emergency powers provided by Section 77 of the Act and Section 78(6) provides the court a wide discretion to consider whether (and how much) the complainants should pay. This is the appropriate mechanism to determine the issue and we would therefore expect them to use it.
11. Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z also claim ongoing costs and financial losses from the Council’s actions which they believe may amount to negligence. It is not for us to determine such issues and our decisions are not legally binding. Should they wish to pursue their claim it would be reasonable for them to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late, the courts are better placed to determine any dispute over the Council’s costs, and it would be reasonable for the complainants to make a claim against the Council for their losses at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman