Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to record properly and in a timely way ‘Competent Person Scheme’ notifications and says he has spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman has found some fault by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology and monitoring notifications for a set period to identify any common themes requiring action are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council is failing to record properly and in a timely way notifications from the Fenestration Self Assessment Scheme (FENSA). Mr C also says the Council was obstructive in responding to his concerns. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he has spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The government introduced Competent Person Schemes (CPS) to allow individuals and enterprises to self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations as an alternative to submitting a building notice or using an approved inspector. A competent person must be registered with a scheme that has been approved by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
7. An installer registered with a Competent Person Scheme is qualified to carry out specific types of work in accordance with Building Regulations and should notify the local authority of the work and issue the property owner with a certificate of compliance with Building Regulations either directly or through their scheme operator.
8. If work has not been notified to a Building Control Body or carried out by a Competent Person Scheme registered installer the Local Authority will have no record that the work complies with Building Regulations. These records are important when a person sells their home as certificates of compliance with the Building Regulations may be sought.
9. Replacement doors and windows require Building Regulation approval if the work is not completed by a competent person. One of the schemes approved by the DCLG is FENSA.

Key events

10. Mr C had works completed to his property in 2016 which included two replacement doors and twenty replacement windows. Mr C used a FENSA registered installer. Mr C says when he received his FENSA certificate the installer had failed to include one of the two doors. Mr C says he has since received an additional certificate for the missing door. However, Mr C says this prompted him to check what was registered on the Council’s system.
11. Mr C contacted the Council in June 2018 about a missing record for the work at his property. The Council confirmed it only had one record on its system for his property which related to a single door.
12. Mr C contacted the Council to confirm the installer had incorrectly notified FENSA and the installation included two doors and twenty windows. The Council says FENSA had forwarded the corrected notice for the additional door and this had been processed and uploaded but it had no record of the original notification for a door and twenty windows in 2016.
13. Mr C provided the Council with a copy of the original FENSA email from 2016 in July 2018 with the relevant attachment. The Council confirmed this had been provided to the relevant team to process. There was some suggestion the file may not have been provided in the correct format but it is not clear why the original notification was either not received or not processed.
14. Mr C contacted the Council via his local Councillor in September to ask why the records were not being displayed on the public access planning map. Mr C contacted the Council again in December to say the record was still not displayed on the planning map.
15. The Council responded at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure in December. This confirmed the windows and door application of 2016 was showing on the Council’s records and would be available as part of any subsequent property sale. The Council accepted the record was still not available to view on the public access planning map. The Council explained the relevant team had been asked to rectify the matter.
16. Mr C was not happy with the Council’s response and wrote raising additional concerns. Mr C stated FENSA had emailed the Council directly on 16 April 2018 seeking confirmation that the Council had recorded two previously sent notifications of 20 August 2016 and 10 December 2016. Mr C asked if the Council had provided a response. Mr C also said an email he had sent on 9 July 2018 asking the Council to confirm it had received the two FENSA notifications for two doors and twenty windows had not received a response.
17. The Council responded on 8 January 2019 and refers to the missing FENSA record for a replacement door. The Council says the record had always been logged correctly on its system but was not displayed on the mapping system. The Council confirmed this had been corrected. The Council did not address Mr C’s question about the April 2018 FENSA email or his July email.
18. Mr C contacted the Council again in January as he remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint. The Council responded at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 15 February. The Council apologised that it had not fully addressed all the issues he had raised and provided further explanation.
19. The Council says notifications due to their volume are frequently received in a batch file to a nominated email address in a predetermined format. The files are periodically imported into the Council’s property database via a file transfer system. The Council initially receives the imported information to its planning and building regulation database against the relevant property. The imported files are then transferred by a specialist IT team to a system that supports the public access planning map. This process involves high volume data transfers that require off-line access to live mapping systems and so is undertaken periodically throughout the year.
20. The Council does not use a target timescale for the initial processing of records onto its core database and says it does so as soon as practical. The Council says during the previous 12 months all notifications received using the correct format were processed within a month of receipt. I note there is no statutory target. The Council has also confirmed it has no record of similar complaints during the previous 12 months to suggest there is a wider system issue requiring action.

My consideration

21. There should have been two notifications for Mr C’s property. The first was the FENSA notification for one door and twenty windows and the second was for the missing second door. However, the Council only received the second notification. I do not consider it is possible to now establish why the first notification in 2016 was not received and processed and if this was due to some fault by the Council. In any event, even if this was due to some fault by the Council the Ombudsman would consider the correction to the Council’s records is a suitable remedy for Mr C. I do not consider further investigation on this point would achieve a better outcome for Mr C or be a good use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources.
22. Subsequently the records were not transferred to the public access planning map in a timely manner. I do not consider this caused Mr C a significant injustice as he had the two certificates of compliance if he wanted to sell his property. However, Mr C was put to some time and trouble in chasing the Council until the records were publicly available and he did not receive a complete response to his complaint which I consider requires a remedy.
23. The Council has confirmed it had not at the time of writing received a notification for another property Mr C mentioned in his contact with the Ombudsman. This could be for several reasons and the property owner or representative would need to contact the Council directly with more information for further investigation.

Agreed action

24. The Council has agreed to:
1. write to Mr C to apologise for the time and trouble he spent in pursuing this matter and confirm if it replied to FENSA’s email of 16 April 2018 with a copy to the Ombudsman within one month of my decision; and
2. keep a record of any complaints or reports of issues with competent person scheme notifications for the six months following my final decision sufficient to identify any common themes requiring action with a copy of the resulting report to the Ombudsman at the end of the monitoring period.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation as there was fault by the Council but I consider the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman