Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a district heating system. For part of the complaint, it would be reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in court and for the remainder of it, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a Council run district heating system. He said it was faulty and he could not control the temperature in his privately owned property. Mr X also complained about the fee quoted by the Council for his property to be disconnected from the system.
2. Mr X said this caused him significantly higher energy bills and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained the district heating system was not working correctly. He said he could not control the energy coming into his property.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said it had visited Mr X’s property on various occasions and tried to fix the issue using different methods. As an outcome to Mr X’s complaint, it agreed to carry out a joint visit with its contractor to decide to decide what further action it could take.
10. The Council also offered Mr X modest symbolic payments for complaint handling delays and for previously telling him installing a new valve would fix the issue.
11. The Council maintained communication with Mr X and both it and its contractors have attempted to fix the issue. There is likely no worthwhile outcome beyond this we could achieve by investigating this complaint.
12. The Council also gave Mr X a quote for costs he would need to pay to be disconnected from the system. Mr X disputes the quoted costs. He said they are not in line with a clause in a transfer deed document, issued when he bought the property.
13. Mr X’s complaint about the quote to be removed from the network is a dispute about conveyancing. Mr X believes the costs quoted to him are not in line with a clause in his transfer deed.
14. This is a contractual issue which the Ombudsman cannot decide. Mr X’s concerns should be raised with a solicitor for an interpretation of the transfer deed. Failing this, Mr X could take the matter to court.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to seek a remedy in court and, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman