Summary: Mr X complains that his neighbour damaged his property because of wrong advice by the Council’s Building Inspector. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we could not achieve a remedy from the Council and there is a private remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that his neighbour damaged his property because of wrong advice by the Council’s Building Inspector.

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 or continue with 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 have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says that his neighbour created foundations to an extension on the instruction of the Building Inspector. He says that the Inspector advised the neighbour to dig a trench which overlapped Mr X’s land. He says that his land was affected when cement was poured into the trench.
5. The courts have held councils are not liable for ‘pure economic loss’. This principle was established in the case of Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991) 1 AC 398, where the council failed to inspect the foundations of a building adequately and the building became dangerously unstable. Here it was held that where a defect was discovered but there was no injury to a person or property other than the defect itself, the expense incurred by the owner or a subsequent purchaser of the house in putting the defect right was pure economic loss and could not be recovered. This decision was partly based on public policy considerations.
6. The Ombudsman would not investigate a complaint about damage to a neighbour’s property caused by building works (whether on the advice of a Building Inspector or not) as this is a private matter between neighbours which can be resolved through the courts if necessary. Responsibility for the works undertaken are those of the owner and builder. The Building Inspector does not act as a Clerk of Works instructing a builder to carry out work.
7. The Ombudsman considers that any damage caused to Mr X’s land and property is the responsibility of the neighbour and builder, not the Council. The courts have held that the Council is not responsible for financial loss as a result of the actions of a Building inspector, we could not achieve the remedy Mr X seeks by investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman