Norwich City Council failed to consider ‘best value’ when it decided to demolish a structurally unsound property and sell the site, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin.

In her report she says the owner of the adjoining property, relying on the information the Council gave him about the demolition, employed a solicitor, negotiated with the Council over the effect on his house, and offered to buy the site. But the Council later decided to sell the property by auction instead, because the demolition plan did not provide ‘best value’.

The Ombudsman says that members of the public should be able to rely on the advice and information given by the Council, particularly in cases such as this with potentially substantial consequences.

A man bought a semidetached property in Norwich for his daughter to live in while she attended university. The adjoining property had structural problems, and he was concerned about the impact on his property of the proposed demolition. So he and his solicitor made representations to the Council and negotiations took place. He offered to purchase the plot once the demolition had been carried out.

However, after the Council checked the with the Council’s solicitor, the Council stated that it could not proceed as it would not be able to demonstrate ‘best value’. Instead it decided that the property should be auctioned as it stood.

The man complained that the Council’s original decision to demolish the adjoining property had been flawed and that the way the Council dealt with the matter had been unreasonable. He says he was caused considerable anxiety, and that he incurred solicitors’ and professional survey fees in the region of £6,000.

The Ombudsman finds that, when the Council decided to approve the demolition of the property and sell the site, it did not give proper consideration to whether this would demonstrate best value. She cannot be certain that, if the Council had reached its decision properly, the complainant would have avoided all of his costs, but says “it seems to me that the key reason that he incurred the costs that he did was the concern that stemmed from the Council advising him it would be demolishing the adjoining property.” She also accepts that the complainant must accept some responsibility for the risks associated with property ownership.

She therefore recommends the Council to pay him £3,000 – half of the professional fees he incurred, plus £1,000 for his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Report ref 10 008 447

Article date: 10 August 2012