Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way works were carried out on his property under a grant provided by the Council. We are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to apply to the Courts who are better placed in this case to determine any dispute about contracts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way works were carried out on his property under a grant provided by the Council. He said the works have not resolved the issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation

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

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was awarded a Housing Assistance Grant to repair a leaking roof at his property. Work began in August 2023.
8. After the works, Mr X complained to the Council that the roof was still leaking, and water was pooling on his roof and going on to a neighbour’s roof. He said the contracted work was for a full recover of the roof and should have taken 3 weeks, not one day.
9. In its complaint responses the Council said an investigation by an officer found the roof to be watertight. It said a further visit, by a senior officer, agreed the roof was fit for purpose. It said pooling and water falling on to a neighbouring roof could not be prevented.
10. The Council said work identified as part of the officer’s visit were not normally covered by the Housing Assistance Grant. However, it agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to re-flash the roof, remove a waste pipe, check beneath tiles and complete any remedial works identified. It could not provide a timescale for the works.
11. The Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns. It has made site visits and, although it did not consider there was any fault in the original work done, it agreed to carry out further work as a goodwill gesture. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
12. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints of administrative fault. We cannot decide liability in complaints about damage to property, only the Courts can do this. If Mr X considers the works have caused damage to his property or there is a breach of contract, it is reasonable to expect him to present a claim to the Courts.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation and it is reasonable expect Mr X to take his concerns about property contract dispute to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman