Council chief building control officer Neil McLeod said when contacted yesterday he was seeking an informal legal opinion from Department of Building and Housing staff in Wellington, following complaints from Seaview Tce residents Simon Sutherland and Jennifer Jones.
He expected the information to be available in "not too many weeks", but would not discuss the details while the council's investigation into the couple's complaints continued.
The couple told the Otago Daily Times earlier this month they were frustrated by the council's inability to stop a neighbour - Dunedin man Bourke Thomas - from building what they claimed was a defacto builder's yard on two vacant residential properties next to their home.
Mr Thomas has declined to speak to the ODT, hanging up twice when contacted earlier this month.
However, the couple claimed piles of old construction materials, equipment, rubbish and two buildings on the site contravened district plan rules.
Council staff had been unable to resolve the matter despite more than 100 phone calls and 50 emails, Mr Sutherland said.
Mr Sutherland said when contacted yesterday he had heard nothing more from council staff since the ODT's August 14 story, and was still waiting for a ruling after complaining to the Office of the Ombudsmen.
However, he and wife Jennifer were now also considering taking their case to the Environment Court.
"It may be a wee bit of a mission but I personally think it's worth it.
"The council keep dropping the ball or turning their back, but it's not good enough.
"From there, it might start getting expensive, but for us it's worth spending a bit of money to protect the value of our property."
Mr Sutherland said he had spoken to Mr McLeod in the street earlier this month - after being interviewed by the ODT, but before the August 14 story was published - and received an assurance more action was likely.
That included a seven-day deadline requiring the couple's neighbour to file plans with the council, detailing any plans to build a residential home on the sections, Mr Sutherland said.
Council staff, in previous letters to the couple, had argued the materials were allowed on site because they were commensurate with a planned residential development - which was permitted - despite no home being built, or consents issued, in six years.
Yesterday, Mr McLeod confirmed he had planned to issue a deadline, but was "yet to speak" to the neighbour, and would now wait until he had received legal advice.
"Until such time as I have confirmed my interpretation of the legislation is correct, I won't be giving him any deadline."
