• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My assessment
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over an unsafe boundary wall. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against her neighbour over a boundary wall separating her back garden. She says the wall has loose bricks and pointing and could cause injury if it collapsed. She wants the Council to require her neighbour to rebuild it.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the boundary wall between her garden and her neighbour’s is in a poor state of repair with missing pointing and loose bricks on the top. She is concern ed that it could be a danger to her and her pets and asked the Council to intervene to force the neighbour to repair the wall which is their responsibility.
6. The Council inspected the site and it gave advice to the neighbour about securing the wall. It told Ms X that the wall did not warrant enforcement under the provisions of the Building Act 1984 because it was not a dangerous structure affecting the public or building occupants. The Building Act gives councils powers to serve enforcement notices on the owners of land where there is a dangerous structure where there is a danger to the public. The notices carry a right of appeal to the magistrates court and so should only be served where there are reasonable grounds to do so.
7. The Council advised Ms X to seek a resolution with her neighbour as they are the only parties involved. If they cannot agree to make the wall safe then she would have to seek a legal remedy for private nuisance or negligence in the courts.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council responded to Ms X’s concerns by investigating. It is for the Council to decide if a case warrants enforcement action in response to a danger to the public.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over an unsafe boundary wall. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page