• You are here:
• Home /
• Sample Cases

Sample Cases

Dublin City Council - Dispute Over Damage to Property

Year Concluded: 2005

Complaint Details:

I received a complaint against Dublin City Council from a woman whose rear garden wall had collapsed in November 2000, allegedly as a result of erosion from a river running at the back of her property, leaving her garden exposed. Her garden was approximately 2.5 metres higher than the river. She claimed that works carried out by the Council some years previously had caused the wall to collapse.

The Council was of the opinion that the wall collapse was caused by the extremely high flow level in the river, following heavy rainfall in November 2000, combined with the pressure exerted by the progressive growth of substantial tree roots directly adjacent to the wall. It was of the opinion that this was a matter between the complainant and her insurer. However, her insurance company had refused to accept any liability in the matter.

When I contacted the Council it refused to accept any responsibility for the repair of the damage. It said that work was carried out in 1994 in the general vicinity of the complainant's property after extensive discussions/representations by local public representatives and residents' organisations. At the time, the river bank wall and some of the garden walls had collapsed and there was a serious risk to the adjoining properties. In addition, there was a strip of land between the properties and the river bank the ownership of which could not be determined and it was decided that the most appropriate course of action in the circumstances was to carry out some reconstruction work. The works carried out did not extend to the rear of the complainant's property.

In March 2002, the complainant arranged for an engineer to carry out an inspection of the area in an effort to determine the reason for the collapse of the wall. He identified that the remedial work referred to by the Council in 1994 consisted of the placing of gabions (i.e. wickerwork baskets filled with stones) and underpinning of the wall with concrete on the downstream side of the complainant's property. No remedial work seemed to have been carried out at the rear of the complainant's property. The engineer noted that, due to erosion, the width of the river had increased behind the complainant's property as this was the only portion of the river which had no concrete/gabion protection. He concluded that:

a) the roots of a whitethorn tree did not have any detrimental effect on the wall given the relative size of the wall and the tree;

b) the Council recognised the problem of erosion along the river and carried out remedial works to protect and underpin the stone wall on one side of the river and constructed a new river wall on the other side of the river. However, no remedial measures were taken at the rear of the complainant's property, or if such work was carried out, it was unsuccessful and failed. If the remedial work had been correctly installed, this wall would not have collapsed. The accelerated erosion of the only remaining soft riverbank had undermined the wall and thereby caused the collapse of the stone boundary wall;

c) it would not be possible for the complainant to reconstruct the boundary wall without forming a new river bank. It would not be normal for a member of the public to organise for the construction of a river bank, controlled by a local authority, outside the boundary of the site.

Although this report was presented to the Council by a Minister of the Government, the Council continued to deny it had any liability in the matter. After she complained to my office the Council also denied it had any liability.

Following a meeting between my Office and senior management of the Council, it was agreed that the Council would commission an independent chartered engineer to carry out an independent assessment of the existing conditions. In his assessment he said that there were potentially four reasons for the collapse of the wall:

1) the presence of the large whitethorn tree with roots exerting a lateral force against the wall;

2) inadequate configuration of the original rubble retaining wall;

3) erosion to the river bed which would have undermined the old masonry rubble retaining wall;

4) erosion due to the force of water as a result of the step in the line of the river immediately adjacent to the whitethorn tree.

The independent engineer said that, in hindsight, it would have been better if the Council had carried out the underpinning work referred to above behind the complainant's garden and as far as the garden upstream of the complainant. Underpinning had only been done downstream of the complainant's garden. The engineer was of the opinion that the Council should be responsible for the construction of a new retaining wall up to the level of the garden. He considered that the complainant might be asked to contribute to the cost of the garden wall.

The Council accepted the report of the engineer and agreed to take responsibility for the construction of the retaining wall. It still maintained that the complainant's insurance company should be responsible for some part of the costs involved. As it seemed to me that the Council might be correct in saying that the insurance company should bear some responsibility for meeting at least part of the costs involved, I asked the complainant to refer the matter to my colleague, the Financial Services Ombudsman. After some contact between the Council and representatives of the insurance company an agreement was reached to apportion the cost of the work (€60,000). This was acceptable to all involved, including the complainant.

While it took over five years for the Council to accept that it had any liability in the matter, during which time the complainant (a widow) had to endure the dangers of an exposed back garden, I am glad that the Council eventually saw that it had a responsibility in the matter and agreed to carry out the remedial work. The work was finally carried out early in 2006 and the complainant was very happy with the outcome.

Back to contents