Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council's response to his reports of defective workmanship in his home completed under a government grant scheme. The courts are better placed to consider a dispute about liability and whether the Council should pay damages. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to complete required remedial works following defective workmanship carried out under a government energy efficiency scheme administered by the Council. He says the defects have caused damp and mould in his home which is affecting his and his family’s health and causing distress. He wants the Council to fund the required remedial work, pay compensation and improve its communication.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X lives in a property owned by his relative, Ms Y.
8. In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council said Ms Y’s contractual agreement was with the construction company, and so the company was responsible for any required remedial works. If Mr X was unhappy with the constructor’s actions and response to his concerns, he could complain through the warranty scheme connected to the government grant scheme.
9. It said although the Council did not accept liability, it had visited Mr X’s home to assess the constructor’s workmanship. It said following its investigation, it did not agree the reported defects were caused by deficiencies in the constructor’s work. It said it had acted to mediate between Mr X and the construction company, but if Mr X remained dissatisfied and the construction company had stopped engaging with him, the next step was to complain through the warranty scheme.
10. It also said if Mr X and Ms Y considered his neighbour’s tree was causing damage to the property, this was a private matter between Ms Y and the owner of the neighbouring property.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council did inspect the work but decided that any damp or mould in the property was not caused by defective workmanship. Although I accept Mr X disagrees with this position, this is a professional view the Council is entitled to reach. The Council acted appropriately by investigating and trying to help resolve the matter by liaising with Mr X and the construction company. Although this has not led to a resolution for Mr X, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matter to warrant us investigating.
12. We cannot decide who is liable for any required remedial works and whether the Council should pay Ms Y damages. Only a court can do this. If Mr X considers the Council is liable for any poor workmanship and completing remedial works, this matter is better considered and determined by a court.
13. If Mr X considers the tree on his neighbour’s land is causing damage to the property, this would also be a matter better considered by the courts. We could not determine who is responsible for maintenance of the tree and whether they are liable for any damage to Ms Y’s property, only a court can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the courts are better placed to consider the matters raised and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman