Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept any responsibility for defective works at their home caused by a contractor which it recommended. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall call Mr and Mrs X, complain that the Council recommended a list of contractors to carry out work for which it granted a loan. They say the contractor who fitted windows and doors did not carry out the work to a good standard and there have been problems with the fittings. They want the Council to accept responsibility for the contractor’s failures.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr and Mrs X submitted with their complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr and Mrs X have been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs X secured a shared equity loan from the Council in 2017 for improvement works to their home. The works included windows and doors provided by a company which was on the Council’s recommended list of contractors. The loan was secured in the form of a charge on the property. 13 months after installation they say a crack appeared in the door panel and fittings on the windows became faulty. They complained to the contractor, but it denied liability and said the door had been damaged by impact.
5. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council for recommending a contractor who did not carry out the work to a reasonable standard. The Council advised them that it was only the authority for lending the funds for the improvement work. Although they signed a legal agreement to borrow the loan funds, they signed a separate contract with the company who carried out the work. Mr and Mrs X own their home and the contract was between the improvement company and themselves.
6. The Council advised Mr and Mrs X to make a claim against the contractor’s insurers because the installations were covered by a 10-year insurance certificate issued by the installer’s trade body.
7. The Ombudsman can investigate procedural issues related to a council’s administration of a loan or grant. We cannot investigate contractual agreements between a private householder and a contractor who has carried out work. That is a private matter. Although the contractor may have been on the Council’s list of recommended tradesmen there is no contractual relationship between it and the complainants relating to the improvement work. They signed a separate agreement with the window installer and would have to pursue the defect in the same manner as any other householder, regardless of the source of the funding for the works.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman