Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made the complainant fix a wall which did not need repairs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council made him spend money fixing a wall which did not need to be repaired. Mr X says he has lost out financially and he wants compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the inspection reports, email exchanges between Mr X and the Council, and looked at photographs of the wall. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X owns a yard. There is a wall which backs onto several houses along two roads. In 2017 the Council received reports that the wall was dangerous. The Council inspected the wall and found it needed repairs but was not immediately dangerous.
5. The Council wrote to Mr X on 10 May 2017 and asked him to either demolish or make safe the wall in 14 days. It warned him the Council would serve a formal notice if he did not comply. The Council asked Mr X to contact the Council to discuss what he planned to do.
6. The Council contacted Mr X on 18 May and asked for a site meeting to discuss the repairs. The Council said an officer had visited but was unable to get into the yard. However, it appeared that some parts of the wall were in a worse condition than other parts and it was unlikely Mr X would need to demolish the whole wall. Mr X replied saying there was no point in delaying removal of the wall as he would be liable if it collapsed. He said he had arranged for demolition to start on 22 May. There was, however, a meeting on 23 May with Mr X and his surveyor. It was noted that some parts of the wall had been demolished and Mr X agreed to do further work.
7. The Council chased Mr X later in 2017, and in 2018 and 2019 because he had not completed all the work.
8. Mr X complains he has found out the wall did not need to be repaired. He says this was confirmed by his builder and surveyor. He says he was forced to demolish the wall due to the letter from the Council. Mr X also says the Council asked him to repair the wrong wall and that it used the wrong email address in February 2020. Mr X wants compensation.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s surveyor inspected the wall and found it needed repairs along all sections although it did not need immediate action. I am not a surveyor but I have seen photographs of the wall showing cracks. I have also seen a letter Mr X sent to neighbours in 2004 in which he said the wall was unsafe and unstable and he intended to repair it.
10. The Council’s letter, and subsequent email, asked Mr X to discuss his plans in advance and urged a site meeting. Mr X, however, decided to go ahead with demolition before having the site meeting. There is nothing in the notes to suggest that either Mr X or his surveyor disputed that work was needed and Mr X agreed to do additional work after the initial demolition.
11. Mr X says the wall did not need repairs and that the Council was referring to the wrong wall. But, this view is not supported by the evidence. The Council’s surveyor found the wall needed repairs and I have seen emails Mr X’s surveyor sent to the Council which discusses the practicalities of the repairs but does not say repairs are not needed. In addition, in May 2017, Mr X decided to start demolition, before agreeing with the Council that that was the type of repair which was needed.
12. The May 2017 letter referred to the wall running along one road because that was the section where the wall was in the poorest condition. I have checked with the Council and it has confirmed the whole wall, running along both roads, was in a poor condition, to varying degrees, and needed repairs. This view is supported by the evidence.
13. It is unfortune the Council made an error when it sent a complaint reply to Mr X in 2020 using the wrong email address. But, this has no bearing on the Council’s request for Mr X to repair the wall in 2017. The error does not require an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman