Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to take enforcement action against a building which does not comply with building regulations and which the complainant says is dangerous. The Council has inspected the building and proved it is immune from enforcement action. It has also decided the building is not dangerous and does not warrant an application to the magistrate’s court for removal. Having followed the correct process, these are decisions the Council is entitled to make.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council will not take enforcement action against a structure built by his neighbour. Mr X says the wooden structure is a dangerous fire risk and adjoins his property.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X did not tell the Council about the structure built by the neighbour and used as a garage until 2022.
6. The Council inspected the property and confirmed it did not meet building control regulations. However, enforcement action cannot be taken under the Building Act if the building has been in place for more than ten years. The Council says evidence shows the building has been in place since at least 2006. Therefore, it cannot taken enforcement action against the garage for non-compliance with the building regulations.
7. Mr X says the building is a dangerous fire risk and therefore the Council can act under section 77 of the Building Act .
8. The Council confirms an officer has inspected the building. It has confirmed the building is not considered as dangerous. It therefore will not apply to the magistrate’s court under section 77 of the Building Act to require removal of the building.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We can look at the Council’s decision-making process, but we cannot say if a decision is right or wrong. The Council should take account of law, policy, relevant evidence and information. If it has followed those steps we cannot find fault. In this case, the Council inspected the building. It established it has been in place for more than ten years and is immune from enforcement action. It also decided the building is not dangerous and does not warrant taking action under section 77 of the Building Act. Having followed the correct process, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman