Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly deal with building regulations inspections for a property he purchased. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the law does not hold councils responsible for financial losses caused by building regulation failure. The Council is not responsible for the faults of the contractor who carried out the work.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly deal with building regulations inspections for a property he purchased. He complained the septic tank at the property was not installed correctly.
2. Mr X told us the Council had agreed to arrange for some remedial works to be carried out, implying it accepted some responsibility. He complained the works did not put everything right, so he complained the Council should do more to help resolve the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We would not generally investigate complaints about ‘pure economic loss’ arising from an alleged failure in Building Control. This is because councils do not hold the primary responsibility for the quality of building work undertaken in a particular case (this lies with the builder and/or the land owner).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided about the background to his complaint. I spoke to Mr X to discuss the complaint and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and approach.
6. I sent Mr X and the Council a draft decision to enable both parties to comment before I made a final decision. I received no comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mr X bought his property in late 2015.
8. He explained that prior to this the former owner engaged a contractor to fit a new septic tank and the associated pipework. After Mr X moved into his property he became aware of regular blockages and other issues.
9. Mr X explained that he had no recourse against the former property owner. Also, he could not pursue the contractor, because he had no contract with him. However, Mr X complained to the Council that the installation of the tank and the associated work did not meet building regulations.
10. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council agreed it would arrange and pay for a contractor to do various works. However, Mr X was not satisfied the works would resolve all of the issues and he wanted the Council to take more action that it had agreed to. Mr X explained the situation had been stressful and he was not presently living at the property because of the issues with the septic tank.

Our Position

11. We will not investigate most building control complaints because primary responsibility for building work rests with those who commission it and those who do the work. When carrying out their functions, local authorities will visit at various stages but they are not required to. The number and timings of any inspections may vary by local authority and type of development. Local authorities will not be present for the great majority of the project and do not act as a ‘clerk of works’.
12. After taking 'all reasonable steps' that the Regulations have been met, they must issue a completion certificate. This is not a guarantee that all works have been done to the required standard. Building Regulations provide a means for the local authority to maintain building standards in general, rather than imposing a duty to maintain standards in each particular case.
13. The courts have held that councils are not liable for ‘pure economic loss’ arising from a dispute about the quality of works subject to building regulations inspections. This principle was established in the case of Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991) 1 AC 398, where the council failed to inspect the foundations of a building adequately. The building became dangerously unstable. The case noted a defect was discovered but there was no injury to a person or property, only the defect itself. In these circumstances the court held that the expense incurred by the owner or a subsequent purchaser of the house in putting the defect right was pure economic loss and could not be recovered from the council. This decision was partly based on public policy considerations. The Ombudsman takes the same view as the courts. We will not generally investigate complaints where the central issue is one of pure economic loss.
14. I note that Mr X bought the property after the disputed works were completed. However, we would generally expect someone to satisfy themselves about the standard and any issues with a property through surveys and through the conveyancing process.
15. Although I recognise the Council has agreed to carry out some works, for the reasons set out above we will not investigate the complaint. We could not require the Council to carry out more works that it has offered to.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I have now discontinued our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman