Summary: A disabled man complained the Council had not taken sufficient responsibility for defective works a builder carried when making adaptations to his property in 2014, and had not done enough to help resolve the ongoing problems caused by these works. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it has been made late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained the Council should have taken more responsibility for resolving problems relating to defective works a builder carried out at his property in 2014 when making adaptations to meet his disability needs. Mr B said this was because the Council helped him find the builder and had a role in overseeing the works. Mr B also complained the Council had not responded properly to his contacts about the issues affecting his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular the Act says 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 an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint and his comments in response to a draft version of this decision. In addition I took account of information from the Council about its response to Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2014 the Council granted Mr B a loan secured on his property to fund the construction of an extension to provide a bedroom and wet room adapted for his disabilities. The Council also helped Mr B find a builder who he then contracted to do the works.
5. Mr B said that during the construction he raised issues with the Council about poor workmanship by the builder, but he was told everything would be fine.
6. A few months after the extension was completed in 2014 Mr B contacted the Council again about several defects in the building works which had become apparent. Mr B said a Council officer promised to visit his property, but this did not happen despite him chasing matters.
7. Mr B contacted the Council again in late 2016 about a wet patch on the ceiling in the extension, and in July 2017 about water dripping through the ceiling. A Council officer then visited Mr B in August 2017 to inspect his property.
8. The officer provided advice about the water ingress issue and contacted the builder. But the officer also explained that Mr B’s contract with the builder meant Mr B was responsible for future maintenance once the works were signed off. The officer advised Mr B that he should contact the builder himself if he thought the problem related to the quality of the building works as his contract contained a mediation process for dealing with such disputes.
9. Mr B said he subsequently contacted the builder but he refused to come to the property. Mr B also said his insurance company inspected his property at this time. But they said it was doubtful they would pay his claim as it appeared the cause of the problem was bad workmanship.
10. Early in March 2018 Mr B arranged an independent survey of the roof and ceiling issues. He said the surveyor’s report highlighted issues with poor workmanship and problems at the design stage of the project.
11. Mr B then made a formal complaint to the Council about the quality of workmanship of the builder it found for him, and about officers’ delays in responding to his communications about this matter. The Council responded in June 2018, but it did not uphold Mr B’s complaints. It said this was mostly because the events in question happened too long ago or were issues Mr B should take up directly with the builder.
12. In June 2019 Mr B brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he had been unable to pursue a legal claim against the builder because the firm did not have any liability insurance. Mr B said as a result of his issues with the builder and the Council he has been left out of pocket and with a bedroom he has not been able to use for two years.

Back to top

Analysis

13. However, having considered the information provided in Mr B’s case I have decided we should not pursue his complaint. This is because he has made his complaint well over 12 months after becoming aware of his issues with the Council. Therefore I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction to investigate which I refer to in paragraph 2 applies in his case.
14. In particular, Mr B evidently raised concerns about the quality of the builder’s work in 2014, and it seems he was aware the Council had not responded to those concerns by 2015. It also appears Mr B would have known of his issues with the Council regarding its response to the water ingress problem by the autumn of 2017. Yet he did not complaint to the Ombudsman about any of these matters until June 2019.
15. From the information provided I do not see why Mr B could not have complained to us much sooner about these issues. As a result I am not convinced we have any good reason to exercise our discretion not to apply the time restriction in his case.
16. It seems Mr B has complained to us now because he has been unable to pursue legal action against the builder and has only recently discovered the builder did not have adequate liability insurance. I understand he considers the Council should take some responsibility for resolving this problem in the circumstances.
17. But even if we were to accept that this is a new issue which has only arisen in the last 12 months, I am still not convinced this would give grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint.
18. In particular I do not see we could pursue any issues about the Council’s role in recommending the builder or checking their insurance cover without examining what happened when the works were commissioned and carried out in 2014. But I am not convinced it would be possible to carry out a fair and meaningful investigation now about events which took place around five years ago.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation of Mr B’s complaint that the Council has not taken sufficient responsibility for resolving issues to do with defective works a builder carried out in 2014 when adapting his property to meet his disability needs. This is because Mr B has complained late about these matters, and there is no good reason for us exercise discretion and pursue his case now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman