Summary: A homeowner complained about the Council’s refusal to take responsibility for disrepair she said was caused by works one of its contractors carried out to her property in 2009. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter because it is unlikely we would find grounds to fault the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complained that the Council should take responsibility for rectifying disrepair to her property which she said resulted from substandard works its contractor carried out in 2009 as part of a regeneration scheme in her area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault or that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided about her complaint, and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about its assessment of Mrs X’s property.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2009 the Council undertook a regeneration scheme which involved renovating the exterior of properties in Mrs X’s street. The Council appointed a building contractor to carry out the works on its behalf. In Mrs X’s case the works included fitting a new front door and front doorstep.
5. In 2018 it came to Mrs X’s attention that there was a problem with the floor in her hallway. Mrs X contacted the Council and it advised her to obtain an opinion from a damp proofing specialist.
6. The damp proofing specialist found there was extensive damage to the floorboards and joists in Mrs X’s hallway and living room due to dampness and wet rot, and that parts of the floor were collapsing as a result. The specialist said the wet rot was caused by high ground levels obstructing the sub floor ventilation.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council about this matter. In particular she said the problem at her property was caused in 2009 because the contractor had not properly prepared the floor surface or put in a damp proof membrane before fitting the front door, installed a front step with no under-floor ventilation, and put down block paving which partially covered an airbrick. Mrs X also said the contractor had painted over the airbricks.
8. Council officers carried out an inspection at Mrs X’s property, and the Council then responded to her complaint.
9. But the Council did not accept that the dampness problem was necessarily caused by the works its contractor did in 2009. In particular it suggested there was evidence of a pre-existing issue with rising damp at the property, and that later painting had partially blocked the airbricks. The Council also pointed out its officers had tested the front door and found no sign of water ingress.
10. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and she then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

11. But I do not see that we have grounds to investigate matters in Mrs X’s case.
12. In particular Mrs X and the Council evidently have conflicting views about what may have has caused the damp related issues which are affecting her property and the extent to which the Council’s contractor in 2009 had any responsibility for these problems.
13. But I do not see we have the remit or the expertise to reach any definite conclusions from current evidence about the exact cause of the disrepair and whether anything the contractor did in 2009 was crucial in this respect.
14. In any case, I consider it unlikely we could carry out a worthwhile investigation now given the passage of time since the work in question was carried out.
15. In the circumstances I am not convinced we would be justified in starting an investigation about the main issue in Mrs X’s case. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would reveal evidence to enable us to reach a clear-cut finding of fault against the Council on the basis its contractor was responsible for causing the disrepair affecting her property.
16. In addition I suggest that in order to find against the Council we would need to be satisfied the contractor was negligent in carrying out the works to Mrs X’s property. But negligence is ultimately a legal matter for the courts to rule on and we cannot act as a substitute for the courts in this respect. As a result I do not see we have the remit to make a meaningful decision about any issue regarding negligence by the contractor.
17. We can consider if there was fault in the way the Council looked into the issues in Mrs X’s complaint. But I am not convinced there is anything we need to pursue in this respect.
18. In particular the Council evidently sent suitably qualified officers to assess matters in response to Mrs X’s complaint. It also seems to me the Council provided a reasoned response to the issues Mrs X raised which was based on the officers’ findings, even if she disagreed with its conclusions.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mrs X’s complaint that disrepair affecting her property is attributable to works the Council’s contractors carried out in 2009. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence to justify finding fault with the Council in this respect.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman