Summary: There was some fault by the Council in the way it communicated with Mr X about a damaged wall bordering his property, however this has not caused Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled concerns about the safety of a boundary wall. Mr X said this caused him to spend money on legal and surveyors costs.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke with Mr X over the telephone about the complaint. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. A Council may take action to protect the public if it considers a building or structure in its area to be unsafe. Councils may order works to improve defective, dangerous or dilapidated buildings or structures. If the building owner does not comply with the order, the Council may carry out the works and charge for its costs.

What happened

6. Mr X and his neighbour share a boundary wall. In Autumn 2020 a Council officer from Building control came to inspect the wall. Following this, the Council sent Mr X and his neighbour a dangerous structure notice. This said the wall was in danger of falling and instructed needed to be made safe.
7. Following this Mr X found out that his neighbour knew the Building Control officer who had visited from the Council. Mr X said they were friends. The Council decided to send a new Building Control officer to look at the wall.
8. In late 2022, the Council wrote to Mr X and his neighbour and said it had closed the case. The Council said:
• It considered the wall was not a danger to the public but needed maintenance.
• It had been provided with paperwork to suggest the wall was jointly owned by Mr X and his neighbour, however it was not able to get involved in this as it was a civil matter between the two neighbours.
• The condition of the wall should be reviewed at intervals and any necessary works carried out in an appropriate time scale. The Council said temporary measures or use of the part of the garden where the damaged wall was should be considered.
9. Mr X said he instructed solicitors sometime between late 2020 and spring 2021 to establish who owned the boundary. Mr X also said he instructed a surveyor.
10. Mr X said his neighbour disagreed with his surveyor’s view of the wall and this caused further issues with repairing the wall. Mr X said he eventually had to instruct a structural engineer to show the wall was unsafe. Mr X said in the summer of 2021, his neighbour installed fence posts on their side of the wall as a result of advice from the Council.

Mr X’s complaint

11. In early May 2023, Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said:
• The Council initially sent him a dangerous structure notice and was sent by an officer who was a friend of his neighbour’s. Mr X said this Council officer was impartial.
• After the matter was closed as a civil issue between two neighbour’s Mr X said he had to employ a solicitor and structural engineer. Mr X said he did this as a result of the dangerous structure notice the Council send him in October 2020.
• He saw an emails between his neighbour’s surveyor and the Council which said both parties knew temporary works could be considered and the wall was not a danger to the public. Mr X said he did not know temporary works were an option to repair the wall and the Council should have told him this at the time.
• The officer who originally sent him a dangerous structure notice continued to communicate with his neighbour after the matter was closed as a civil case.
12. After progressing his complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure, the Council sent Mr X its final response in June 2023. The Council said:
• It would have been better if the Council had initially written to Mr X and his neighbour setting out the risks of the wall and whether the matter required intervention from the Council.
• It accepted an officer provided advice to his neighbour, but this was only provided to assist in terms of what could be done on adjoining land.
• It was satisfied the officer Mr X said was impartial did not prejudice the case and was only trying to assist as a professional Building Control officer.
• It did not accept that any fault would justify the repayment of Mr X’s legal costs as he would have needed to instruct a solicitor to determine who owned the wall.
13. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X is seeking reimbursement of his legal and surveyors costs and compensation.

Analysis

14. The Council initially sent Mr X and his neighbour a dangerous structure notice in October 2020. After a new officer was allocated the to the case they found that the wall was not a danger to the public and a civil matter which needed resolving between Mr X and his neighbour.
15. It is not clear why a dangerous structure notice was initially sent, and the Council has acknowledged it could have better communicated with the parties setting out the risks of the wall and whether repairing it needed intervention from the Council. While this amounts to some minor fault, I am satisfied it has not caused any injustice to Mr X.
16. The Council told Mr X in early November 2020 that the repairing of the wall was a civil matter as it did not pose a danger to the public. As he was in a dispute with his neighbour about how the wall should be repaired, he would have had to seek legal advice and assistance to find out who was responsible for the repair of the wall and if he was responsible or partly responsible he would have had to employ surveyors to assess the condition of the wall.
17. I do not think the Council’s actions caused Mr X to have to unnecessarily spend money on legal and surveyors costs.
18. Mr X also said a Council officer continued to correspond with his neighbour about the wall. While there is a record of communication between the Council and the neighbour, the initial repairs suggested were communicated to the neighbour before the Council told both parties in November 2020 that the matter was a civil one. The Council has also confirmed these were only to confirm what could be done on adjoining land. I cannot see what injustice Mr X has suffered as a result of this.
19. Mr X also said he was not aware that temporary repairs could have been put in place and the Council told his neighbour this but did not tell him. From the evidence seen, the correspondence sent to Mr X on 6 November 2020, ending Building Control’s involvement says temporary measures could be considered by the parties.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation and found there was some fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X, but this has not caused him any injustice so no remedy is recommended.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman