London Borough of Wandsworth (18 018 343)

Category : Housing > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council’s Telecommunications Provider damaged his home. The Council was at fault because its Telecommunications Provider installed cabling to Mr B’s home outside of its agreement with the Council and without permission. The Telecommunications Provider has admitted it made a mistake and has offered to remove the installed cabling or to engage with Mr B to agree a solution. This is an adequate remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has not properly dealt with the Telecommunications Provider damaging his home, when it completed works as part of a Service Concession Agreement. Mr B is unhappy because:
    • the Telecommunications Provider has completed works to his house without permission.
    • the Council has not taken responsibility for the mistake.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr B and considered the details of his complaint. I reviewed documents sent by the Council about Mr B’s complaint.
  2. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Council entered into a Service Concession Agreement (SCA) with a Telecommunications Provider in order to improve the availability of broadband internet provision in housing owned by the Council. The Telecommunications Provider paid the Council for the opportunity to deliver infrastructure and services to Council owned properties.
  2. To facilitate this, the Council granted a wayleave agreement to allow the Telecommunications Provider to complete the necessary works

What happened

  1. In July 2018, Mr B was aware of the Council’s plans. He emailed the Council to ask if it would be possible for the new telecommunications infrastructure to be installed into his privately owned home. The Council said it would enquire if this was possible but did not send Mr B any more information.
  2. In September, Mr B became aware that the Telecommunications Provider had completed works at his property.
  3. Mr B told the Council about the work that had been done to his home. The Council responded to him and said that the Telecommunications Provider had made a mistake. It offered to liaise with the Telecommunications Provider to remove the cabling that had been installed.
  4. Mr B told the Council he had not made a complaint, but he was not happy with the response because he thought the Council should deal with the problem, not the Telecommunications Provider. Mr B asked how he could take this up further with the Council.
  5. Shortly afterwards, Mr B emailed the Council asking for a reply to his question. The Council responded and told Mr B that although he did not want to deal with the Telecommunications Provider, he should email the Telecommunications Provider’s Business Development Manager, so that his concerns could be addressed quickly.

Mr B’s complaint

  1. On 4 October, Mr B then made a formal complaint to the Council that cabling had been installed at his property without permission. He said that the Council had not answered his questions.
  2. The Council dealt with Mr B’s complaint at stage 2 of its corporate complaints procedure. A response to Mr B’s complaint was sent to him on 9 November. The Council confirmed its earlier response that the Telecommunications Provider mistakenly completed works at Mr B’s house. It said Mr B should email the Telecommunications Provider’s Business Development Manager who would be able to resolve the problems Mr B was complaining about.
  3. Mr B said he was not happy with the Council’s stage 2 response because it was not fit for purpose, was delayed, did not answer his previous questions, covered irrelevant points, and Mr B thought the Council should resolve the problem not the Telecommunications Provider.
  4. The Council responded to Mr B at stage 3 of its corporate complaints procedure. It replied to all Mr B’s points raised when he said he was unhappy with the stage 2 response. The Council said it accepted it had an interest in influencing an amicable outcome and offered to arrange a joint site visit between Mr B, the Council and the Telecommunications Provider to try to find a solution.

Analysis

The works to Mr B’s house

  1. The Telecommunications Provider was completing work as a result of a SCA with the Council that was entered into through a competitive tendering process.
  2. The work done to Mr B’s home was not covered by the Wayleave agreement given to the Telecommunications Provider by the Council, because Mr B’s home is privately owned. Mr B did not give permission for any works to be carried out.
  3. The Council and the Telecommunications Provider agree that the works done were as a result of a mistake by the Telecommunications Provider as it was completing work under the SCA with the Council. This was fault by the Council. The Council do not dispute that Mr B’s property has been damaged by the Council’s Telecommunications Provider.

What has the Council done?

  1. The Council says the Telecommunications Provider is willing to talk to Mr B to resolve the problem.
  2. When it responded to Mr B’s complaint, the Council twice provided him with email contact details for a senior manager who would be able to engage with him to address the problem he complained about.
  3. The Council has also offered to facilitate a joint site visit between Mr B, the Council and the Telecommunications Provider. Mr B has declined this and says that he is only able to communicate electronically and does not have time to attend a physical meeting.
  4. Mr B says the Telecommunications Provider has also physically visited his property to remove the cabling. Mr B refused to allow this to be done.
  5. If Mr B had only wanted the cabling to be removed, he could have pursued this option when the Telecommunications Provider offered it to him.
  6. Mr B has told me that he would like the Telecommunications Provider to make an offer about provision of its broadband services to him. The Council cannot do this. I have not seen any evidence that Mr B has contacted the Telecommunications Provider through the email address given to him.
  7. The Council has offered to facilitate communication between Mr B and the Telecommunications Provider to find a resolution to the problem. The continuing delay in achieving a resolution to the problem is because Mr B has declined to communicate with the Telecommunications Provider.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was at fault because its Telecommunications Provider damaged Mr B’s home. However, there is no outstanding injustice to Mr B because only the Telecommunications Provider can resolve Mr B’s problem and the Council has facilitated communication between Mr B and the Telecommunications Provider to find a resolution to the problem. This is a suitable remedy. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings