Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. The Council does not assume liability for the cost of putting right damage resulting from any failure to comply with the Building Regulations; if Mr X is concerned his neighbour’s new boiler will damage his property he may wish to seek legal advice about a claim against his neighbour and/or his installer.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has refused to take action against his neighbour for installing a new boiler in a way he says does not comply with the Building Regulations.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Building regulations set standards for the design and construction of buildings to ensure the health and safety of people in and about those buildings. A completion certificate for building work is not a guarantee that all works are completed to the necessary standard. All the certificate can and does state is that, as far as the Council could tell at the time, building work complied with the Building Regulations.
6. Mr X’s neighbour, Mr Y, has recently had a new boiler installed. Mr X complains the boiler does not comply with the Building Regulations as it too close to his property and vents exhaust fumes towards it. He is concerned that over time the fumes will cause damp and believes the Council should act to stop it.
7. The Council has explained the issue is a private civil matter between Mr X and Mr Y. It says the installer is deemed “competent” under the Government’s competent persons scheme and that if they provide certification that the boiler has been installed properly it would likely issue a completion certificate. Mr X disagrees with this.

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has not yet issued a completion certificate but it is satisfied that certification by the installer is sufficient evidence to show the installation complies with the Building Regulations. This is a matter of judgement and it is not for us to say the Council should withhold a certificate or take action against Mr Y or his installer to require them to make changes.
9. Mr X’s concerns in this case stem from his belief that the exhaust fumes will damage his property. But should this happen it would be the result of the installation rather than the Council’s intention to issue a completion certificate.
10. The courts have held that councils are not liable for the cost of correcting a defect resulting from any failure to ensure compliance with the building regulations; liability rests with the owner of the building and those carrying out the work (Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) and Governors of Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd & ORS (1984)).

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Building Regulations sign-off does not transfer liability for damage caused by any substandard work to the Council. Its actions cause Mr X no direct injustice and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman