Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly lifting notices on a property which Mr X later leased. This is because Mr X should have carried out his own due diligence to check the property was fit for his intended use. Any injustice Mr X experienced was not caused by fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly lifted notices on a property prior to him taking a lease. Mr X says he cannot use the property as intended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council served three Health and Safety Notices on a commercial property. The Council lifted two of the Notices, the third Notice remains on the record but is unenforceable. The Notices should have remained on the record. The Council accepts it did not deal with the assessment for lifting the Notices in the most suitable way during the Covid pandemic. The Council admits it is at fault.
7. Mr X signed a commercial lease for the property after the Council lifted the Notices. Mr X says he relied on the Council lifting the Notices and considered the correspondence from the Council as evidence the works were completed to a satisfactory standard.
8. Mr X says the works to the property have not been carried out to a satisfactory standard. Mr X says the property is no longer in use and he cannot use it for what he intended.
9. The Council lifting the Notices does not guarantee the property is suitable and fit for Mr X’s purpose.
10. An individual should conduct their own due diligence checks and seek independent professional advice before signing a legal agreement. It was Mr X’s responsibility to ensure the property was fit for his intended use. Had Mr X done this, he would have discovered the faults in the property and could have decided not to sign the legal agreement.
11. The Council has admitted fault, Mr X has suffered significant injustice, however the two are not linked. Mr X could have avoided suffering injustice if he completed his own due diligence.
12. Mr X also has a contractual relationship with the landlord of the property against whom he can enforce the terms of the lease.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X could have carried out his own due diligence to check the property was fit for his intended use. Any injustice he experienced was not caused by fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman