The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to return a property to residential use. He said the property attracts unwanted attention causing distress. We found no fault in the Council’s decision making.
The complaint
Mr X complains on behalf of himself and his neighbours, about the Council’s decision making on the use of a property. He says the Council decided to return the property to residential use without consulting with them first as agreed. It then failed to properly consider their request to demolish the property. He says the continued presence of the property attracts unwanted media attention causing them distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended) 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X and I reviewed documents provided by Mr X and the Council.
I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
A property in Mr X’s street was abandoned and subject to media attention.
In July 2020 the Council met with residents of the street to discuss its plans for the property. The Council and residents have differing recollections of what was discussed. However, the Council provided a summary by email, shortly after the meeting.
The Council had told residents of its new proposal; that it would buy the property and sell part under shared ownership, giving them first refusal. It needed agreement from DEFRA before proceeding with this proposal and it would hold a further meeting with them following this.
In January 2021 the Council updated residents that DEFRA had agreed its proposal. It said the Council would now decide whether to proceed and then contact residents again to take forward the model discussed.
In March the Council told one resident it had decided to proceed. It expected to complete the purchase shortly and would then contact residents again. The Council also published a news article outlining its plans.
In mid March the Council met with residents. Residents complained they had expected the Council to return to them for their views before proceeding with the proposal. They had now changed their minds and wanted the house demolished. The Council said it would consider their views and come back to them.
One resident complained to their local councillor who passed this onto the Council. In response the Council said it outlined its proposal to residents in July 2020, followed this up in writing and had since decided to proceed. No-one had suggested before the meeting in March that residents’ views had changed.
In November the Council emailed residents following its consideration. It explained it took into account the cost of demolition, the ongoing costs of maintaining the space left, whether demolition would actually address their concerns and, that this would result in the loss of a home for a local family. Taking these elements into account it decided to continue with the plan to refurbish the house and bring it back into residential use.
The Council offered to meet with residents to explain this further.
Residents refused this offer and wanted to meet with the Chief Executive. However, the Chief Executive felt they could not add anything useful and a meeting did not take place.
Findings
The Council addressed concerns outside its complaints process and a final response was given by the Chief Executive. I consider the Council had reasonable opportunity to address the complaint and so it is not premature.
The complaint covers a period of more than 12 months prior to Mr X contacting the Ombudsman. However, Mr X only had cause to complain from March 2021 and any injustice is ongoing. I will therefore exercise discretion to investigate.
Mr X, residents and the Council hold different recollections of what was said at the meeting in July 2020. However, the Council followed this up in writing shortly after. I attach more weight to this written record. On review I am satisfied the Council had explained its proposal to residents but that this was subject to agreement from DEFRA. It agreed to meet with residents following this. However, it did not suggest its proposal was otherwise subject to change or further consultation with residents.
On review of the communications exchanged I consider there was a misunderstanding between the Council and residents. The documents show the Council intended to meet with residents again once it was further along in the process. There are no records to suggest it agreed to meet or consult with residents again before acting on the proposal discussed in July 2020. On review of the information available I cannot say even on balance that the Council was at fault.
The Council agreed to consider residents’ requests to demolish the building and it did so. The Council gave clear reasons for its decision with reference to the information available. While I recognise residents may disagree with the Council’s decision, I find no fault in its decision making process.
The Council’s Chief Executive was under no obligation to meet with residents to discuss matters further and gave reasons for his response. I do not find fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no evidence of fault in how the Council decided on the use of a property in this case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman