| Publishing organisation: | Scottish Public Services Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Repairs |
| Determination: | Upheld |
| Tenure: | Unknown |
Organisation:
| Glasgow City Council |
| Country of relevance: | Scotland |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
On 9 October 2006, the complainant (Mr C)'s wife (Mrs C) contacted Glasgow City Council to report dampness in their flat. Mr C believed that the source of the dampness was his neighbour (Mr and Mrs N)'s flat. The Council inspected Mr and Mrs N's flat.
They concluded that the dampness was caused by a plumbing fault in Mr and Mrs N's bathroom, and served an Abatement Notice on Mr N, which required remedial work to be undertaken within a specified timescale.
This did not happen by the time the Abatement Notice expired, but the Council kept in contact with Mr N over a period of time, and he did have some work done in his bathroom, although this did not stop the dampness. By 10 February 2007, the problems had not been remedied and Mr C referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Legal background
Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities powers to serve an Abatement Notice which imposes requirements aimed at stopping or preventing recurrence of a statutory nuisance. A statutory nuisance can be judged to exist where 'any premises [are] in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance'.
The authority will stipulate a time limit for compliance with the requirements of the Abatement Notice and if, on expiry of this time limit, no action has been taken to mitigate the nuisance, the person on whom the Abatement Notice has been served shall be guilty of an offence. In addition, an authority may undertake the work necessary to abate the nuisance and recover the costs from the person responsible for that nuisance.
Determination
(a) Failed to enforce an Abatement Notice effectively (upheld).
In their submission to the Ombudsman of 20 August 2007, the Council said that they were drawing up guidelines to ensure greater consistency in their approach to undertaking works in default when an Abatement Notice is not complied with.
The Ombudsman welcomed this initiative and sought confirmation from the Council of the completion of their guidance. In addition, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs C for a lack of clarity and consistency in their approach to addressing this problem.
(b) Failed to keep Mr C adequately informed about progress of the enforcement of the Abatement Notice (no finding). The Ombudsman recommended that the Council reflect on what could be done to address the gap between their statutory responsibilities and customer expectations in situations like this.