Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay managing an empty property. The Council has accepted its delays and offered a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The complainant wants to claim for damage to his property. The relevant insurers or a court would be better placed to decide liability for damage to property.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council provided him with poor service when he contacted it about a neighbour’s property which the Council is managing since the neighbour moved to a care home. Mr C says the Council refuses to pay for repairs to his property which he says is caused by the neighbouring property. Mr C worries about future problems, such a tree in the neighbour’s garden, as he knows the Council is slow to react. The Council has offered Mr C £700 which he says is not enough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accepts when Mr C’s neighbour moved to a care home it delayed referring the matter to its Empty Property Team and to chase deputyship for the neighbour so it could properly manage the neighbour’s property and affairs. The Council also delayed dealing with contacts and complaints from Mr C. To acknowledge the impact on Mr C from these failings, the Council has offered £700.
8. Mr C wants to claim for damage to his property. That is not an issue the Ombudsman can decide. The relevant insurance company, or a court, would be better placed to decide any liability for damage to property.
9. The Ombudsman cannot consider speculation about possible future injustice, such as from the tree in the neighbour’s garden. The Council’s Empty Property Team is now managing the property and will make regular inspections.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because the relevant insurance company or a court is better placed to decide liability for damage to property. The Council has accepted delay in managing the neighbouring empty property and responding to Mr C’s concerns. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has now taken to accept its errors and its offer to make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact on Mr C. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman