Summary: Mr X complained the Council ignored evidence he provided about unsafe installation of an appliance at his rented property. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions. If we did find fault, it is unlikely we would find it had caused Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council ignored evidence he provided that his landlord obtained a fake electrician’s certificate. An extractor fan was installed in late 2019 at Mr X’s rented property and he has concerns the appliance could be unsafe.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In late 2019, a new extractor fan was installed in Mr X’s rented property. Mr X says his landlord installed it rather than a qualified electrician. He raised concerns with the Council, saying a fake electrical certificate was supplied.
7. The Council checked the name on the electrical certificate against the register administered by the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC). It contacted the person named on the certificate to verify details of their visit to install Mr X’s fan. The Council considered the information Mr X provided but it decided there was not substantive evidence to support his allegation. The certificate confirmed the fan was installed to the required safety standards, and there was no substantive evidence the certificate was not genuine.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this does not mean the Council is at fault. We cannot criticise a decision properly made. The Council considered the evidence Mr X provided, and while Mr X felt it should have taken more action to investigate his concern, the Council has explained how its investigation was appropriate and proportionate to the allegation. There is nothing that leads me to believe we would find the Council at fault if we investigated this complaint.
9. In any event, if we did find fault in the Council’s actions, I do not believe we would find that fault had caused an injustice to Mr X. We can only recommend councils take action where fault has caused a significant personal injustice to the person complaining. Mr X is concerned the extractor fan might not be safe. However, any injustice Mr X claims is hypothetical. We should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman