Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against a derelict vacant property. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. For the issues we could consider, it would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a remedy in the courts for damages to her property and any complaint about data rights is better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office and therefore we will not investigate.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled concerns about a derelict vacant property close to her property. Miss X said it:
1. failed to pursue enforcement actions, such as securing a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to take ownership of the property;
2. failed to make the property safe after it suffered substantial damage; and
3. refused her insurance claim for damages caused by the property; and
4. failed to respond to requests for information she made under data protection laws; and
5. handled her complaint poorly.
2. Miss X said the matters caused distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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)
6. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2025 about how the Council handled concerns about a vacant and derelict property. Miss X said the Council told her it was trying to obtain a CPO in around 2018.
11. As outlined in paragraph four, we cannot investigate late complaints without any good reasons. I have considered the available evidence, which confirms Miss X has been aware of the matter since around 2018. I am not satisfied Miss X could not have complained to us sooner. Therefore, there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider the late parts of her complaint now.
12. Of matters within the last 12 months, Miss X complained the Council refused her insurance claim for damages to her property, caused by the derelict property after it suffered substantial damage and the Council failed to make the property safe.
13. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around legal torts are generally best decided by a court where no insurance liability is accepted. Only a court can decide whether the problem should have been dealt with by the council before it caused you harm or if the council is liable to pay “damages” for the loss or injury you have suffered.
14. For this reason, it would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a remedy for damages to her property through the courts and therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
15. Miss X also complained she made information requests and the Council did not comply with its duty to respond to them.
16. The Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) is better placed to consider Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to her information requests. The ICO was set up by parliament to consider disputes about data rights and can take enforcement action about these matters. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint.
17. Finally, as we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because most of it is late and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider it now. For the remainder, it would be reasonable for Miss X to seek a remedy in court or raise the issues with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman