Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly specify the doors for new beach huts. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly specify and install a suitable door for new beach huts. Mr X owns one of the beach huts. He says his door is damaged and many of the beach hut doors are warped or damaged to some degree. He complains the Council fitted doors that were not fit for purpose.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response to the complaint. I sent my draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X owns a beach hut in the Council’s area. In 2014 following storm damage to the beach huts, the Council decided to replace them and modernise the promenade. The Council involved beach hut owners in the project. Mr X was one of the beach hut owners consulted on the specification for the new beach huts.
6. Mr X says the beach huts were handed over to the owners in May 2017, but by August 2017 his door had started to de-laminate and other beach hut owners raised concerns.
7. In August 2017 Mr X complained to the Council. He felt the Council had not made the door specification clear, it had ignored his comments and the beach hut doors were not fit for purpose.
8. The Council carried out defect inspections in September 2017. At that time, it identified 34 doors needed light repair, 18 doors needed major repair and 7 needed replacement. In his correspondence with us Mr X explained his view that because there were so many problems with the doors, the specification had been flawed.
9. The Council in conjunction with its contractor and architect, carried out further inspections of the doors in April 2018, September 2018 and February 2019. The Council identified 17 doors needed to be replacement by February 2019. It later included two further doors, bringing this to 19.
10. Mr X noted when the Council agreed to replace these doors, they offered a more robust door at an additional cost to the beach hut owners. They all took these up. Mr X felt this should have been the specification all along. He asked the Council to replace his door with a solid wood door.
11. The Beach Hut Owners Association arranged for a surveyor to assess the situation with the doors. The survey took place in October 2018. The surveyor could not determine if the correct door had been specified. However, he summarised as follows:

“The doors are starting to fail after less than 18 months, a suitably specified door in this location should achieve around 5 years with regular maintenance. It would be reasonable to assume that these doors require painting annual(sic), but it is unclear if this has occurred. A possible rethink is required on the use of storm doors (panels placed inside the doors to prevent pebbles being washed under the door and into beach huts) as this could be exacerbating the damage caused to the bottom of the door. The quality control of the existing doors is unclear as it is odd for only a certain number of doors to fail seeing as they are all located within a 300m long beach area.”

12. Since Mr X made his complaint, the Council fitted a stainless steel weather strip to the top and a stainless steel pebble guard at the bottom of all beach hut doors. This was in response to feedback from a beach hut owner and to address the issue identified by the October 2018 survey.
13. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints stated the door specifications had been shared with beach hut owners and the doors agreed by the Beach Hut Owner’s Association. Mr X disputed this. He showed us comments he made to the Council as part of this. In them he expressed concern that he had not seen the specification for the doors and he explained his view that the door should have ‘a solid hardwood core and a plywood skin which is suitably weather resistant to minimise deterioration and swelling’. He says the only specification sent to him was that the doors should be FD30 Fire Doors.
14. The Council stated the beach huts were designed to withstand a 1:200 year storm. However, this related to the beach hut structure, rather than the doors. The Council stated it would be impracticable to provide a door to withstand a 1:200 year storm. Beach hut owners were aware they would need to carry out regular maintenance and would need to replace doors over time.
15. The Council stated its architect had researched a suitable, yet practicable fire door. It felt this work had been carried out with due care.
16. It stated the contractor had discussions with manufacturers about what would be appropriate to withstand the harsh conditions. The Council provided evidence of this. The selected door had a solid core but it was not intended to be solid wood throughout.
17. The door supplier told the architect the door they selected was an external door, and it would be suitable for an exposed coastal location, provided it was treated properly and regularly.
18. The Council felt the number of doors it replaced (19 of 119) indicated there was not an inherent failure in the design or selection of the doors, rather that 19 of the doors were likely to have been faulty. It considered the doors specified were fit for purpose.
19. Mr X told us that many of the doors were warped to some degree and he believes the problem is delamination, allowing water ingress. He believed the door chosen is flimsy and not fit for purpose. He did not agree the issue was likely to be quality control.
20. In respect of Mr X’s beach hut door, the Council maintained it had not suffered significant deterioration, and it would not be replaced.

Analysis

21. There is clearly disagreement between Mr X and the Council as to what constitutes a suitable door for the beach huts in this location. However, our role is not to decide whose position is correct or what specification is appropriate. Rather, we investigate to decide if there was fault in how the Council reached its decisions.
22. Mr X was unhappy that the Council stated a group representing beach hut owners had ‘agreed’ the final specification for the doors. There is evidence beach hut owners had seen the specification and provided comments, but the Council stated they had to be balanced against other considerations such as budget. Based on what I have seen, there is no evidence they ‘agreed’ the specification. So, this aspect of the Council’s response was not accurate.
23. However, we would not consider it fault solely for the Council to provide a different door to that requested. I understand Mr X’s views and I recognise he sought a more robust door with a solid, hardwood core. He felt this would better stand the rigours of the coastal position. While I understand his arguments, I found there was no fault in the way the Council decided the specification of the door it chose. I have explained why I came to this view below.
24. The starting point was a relatively ‘solid’ fire door. There is evidence the door was intended to be used externally in commercial situations. The Council’s architect took account of the rigours of the coastal position and sought advice about the suitability of the door from its suppliers. I accept Mr X’s view that other doors are available which may be more robust, but the suppliers confirmed, subject to suitable treatment, the door would be suitable. There is evidence appropriate advice was taken about the treatment of the doors.
25. Also, the Beach Hut Owner’s survey in October 2018, while not conclusive, did not find wholesale failure in the specification. Their findings were mixed; They inspected all the doors and commented that they should last longer than they have. However, they commented about removal of the paint on the bottom of the doors. They felt this could have allowed water ingress. This issue was exacerbated by the use of ‘storm boards’. They also pointed to potential for quality control issues as it would otherwise be odd for relatively few doors to be so significantly affected.
26. Having carried out a number of assessments of the beach hut doors, the Council did not find Mr X’s door was damaged to any significant degree. For this reason, it did not include it in the cohort of doors with significant damage that it agreed to replace. This was a decision the Council was entitled to reach. I have seen no evidence to suggest Mr X’s door was damaged to the same degree as those the Council replaced. I found no fault in this respect.
27. As I have found no fault in the way the Council reached its view or decided its specification, I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman