Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s building works caused damage to his property. The courts are better placed to consider his complaint and we could not achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council are responsible for damaging his property because of building works it had arranged. He said the Council failed to consider the impact of the development on the local environment and its contractors caused damage to land next to his house. He said the damage may get worse if the Council does not take action to put it right.
2. Mr X now wants Council to carry out repair works to his property and a full investigation into the Council’s handling of the building development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained that building works completed by the Council caused damage to a riverbank near his home. He said this was causing the riverbank to erode and putting his property at risk of further damage.
8. The Council responded to say it had investigated Mr X’s concerns. It completed a site visit after heavy rainfall, considered photographic evidence from before and after the works, conducted interviews with the contractor and sought advice from a Senior Flood Risk Officer at the Council. It did not uphold his complaint and said it would not carry out any repair works as it did not agree it was responsible for any damage to Mr X’s property.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants. This is because his complaint is the Council is negligent and liable for damages to his property. We cannot make findings on claims of negligence and liability, and we cannot order the Council to carry out building works. These are legal matters only insurers or the courts can decide. If Mr X considers the Council negligent or liable for damage to his property, it is reasonable for Mr X to make a claim on the Council’s insurance and, if needed, pursue the claim at court. I have not seen anything to suggest it would not be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.
10. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not properly investigate his concerns. The information I have seen shows the Council considered relevant information and explained its reasons to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because if he considers the Council negligent or liable for any damage to his property, it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman