Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to deal with dilapidated properties in part of a town in its area and it not responding to a Councillor’s concerns about the matter over two years ago. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the Council’s handling of the Councillor’s correspondence would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns rental property in a town in the Council’s area. He complains the Council:
1. has systematically failed to deal with dilapidated properties for at least 10 years, specifically property A
2. failed to properly record the same issue brought to them by a local Councillor over two years ago.
2. Mr X says the condition of properties in the area affect property prices, devalue the area, attract criminality, anti-social behaviour and vermin. He says he rents properties in the area so his business and residential tenants are affected by the state of the neighbouring properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, viewed relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council set out that it had received reports over several years about property A. It says officers had sought improvements to the building from 2009 onwards. Officers served a Section 215 Untidy Land Notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the owners in 2022 but they did not comply. A Section 215 notice is issued to the owner or occupier of land when its condition is detrimental to the amenity of its area and requires the land to be cleaned or maintained to an acceptable standard. Officers say the property was then sold on and a further enforcement case opened in late 2024 but was sold again in early 2025. Officers say any previous formal action would need to restart against new owners.
6. Mr X considers the Council has failed to take timely action to require the former owners to improve property A and should now take immediate enforcement action against the current owners. The Council accepts its progress on the matter has been slow but says the current owner is showing intent to resolve property A’s condition. It says officers will take formal action if the current or any future owner does not improve the property.
7. There may have been fault in the Council’s enforcement processes in relation to property A. This could have included delays in initially pursuing formal enforcement, or once a formal action was taken, not making sufficient progress to seek compliance with the notice it served on a previous owner. But even if there has been this or other kinds of Council fault here, we will not investigate. We note Mr X has rental properties in the area where property A and other properties he considers to be in a poor state are located. But he is not a nearby resident and lives in a different area of the town. The impact on Mr X’s everyday life from the condition of property A or other properties in the same area does not amount to a significant personal injustice to him. We understand Mr X wants the Council to improve the area for its residents, which includes his tenants. But any injustice to other people is not Mr X’s injustice. We recognise Mr X may consider her would see an increase in his properties’ values, might more easily rent them, and possibly for higher sums, if the area around them was improved. But we could never determine what impact, if any, on Mr X’s properties has directly stemmed from the condition of property A or others in the vicinity. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the enforcement matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
8. Mr X also complains the Council did not respond to concerns raised about property A by a Councillor well over two years ago. We recognise Mr X is outraged the Council did not respond to the Councillor. But the matter happened many months ago, so is historic and it is unlikely we could now make a finding on what happened to that correspondence. The Council remains aware of the enforcement matters raise by the Councillor and others. An investigation of this issue would not achieve a worthwhile outcome. Furthermore, Mr X does not say how this part of the complaint has caused him an injustice. Mr X’s upset from the Council not replying to another person’s complaint or concerns is not such a significant personal injustice to him to justify an investigation. We also do not investigate how councils have handled a complaint in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the Councillor’s correspondence from over two years ago would not achieve a worthwhile outcome; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman