Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s contractors charge excessive fees for work at his property. And the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint because he could have applied to the magistrate’s court if he believed the costs of the Council’s contractors was excessive. And because we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of failings in the complaint procedure alone, which warrants investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to instruct its own contractors to make his property safe after a fire. He says he has been overcharged by the work which would have been cheaper if he had used his own contractors. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

2. He wants a refund for what he considers to be the unreasonable costs he had to pay. He also wants an apology from the Council for the failings in its complaints handling. And procedures put in place to ensure the failings do not happen again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s response to his complaint. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. If a building is deemed dangerous, the Council can take action necessary to protect the public and close property. This includes issuing a Notice under the Building Act 1984 to the owner requiring works to make it safe, and if appropriate carrying out works needed and then recovering the expenses from the owner.
8. The Police asked the Council to attend Mr X’s property after a fire. The Council considered the property was dangerous. Mr X attended the site with his contractor who advised they could not carry out the emergency work until the following Monday (the fire occurred on a Friday). The Council considered exercised its powers under section 75 of the Building Control Act 1984. It instructed its contractors to carry out the necessary work immediately.
9. Mr X says the contractors arrived on Saturday, put up a safety fence and swept up. He says they returned on Monday with the right equipment and worked for 3.5 hours.
10. Mr X complains the contractor charged them for 6 hours work on Saturday and 10 hours on Monday plus equipment costs. He says his own contractor would have completed the work in the same amount of time as the Council’s contractors but for a third of the costs.

Assessment

Cost of emergency work

11. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the costs he had to pay. However, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the costs charged by the contractor were reasonable. The Council exercised its powers under the Building Control Act 1984. It is satisfied the contractors were commissioned and paid according to its financial procedures and did not see evidence to suggest the amount charged for the work at Mr X’s home was excessive.
12. Mr X says he wanted to use his own contractors to complete the works – but due to availability of equipment at the weekend this was not possible until the Monday. He says the Council insisted the work was done the following day even though it was aware they would not have access to the necessary equipment until after the weekend. And that if he had been allowed to use his own contractors, who would have carried out the same work in the same timeframe, it would have been cheaper.
13. Under the Building Act 1984, if an owner disputes that the work was necessary or the costs involved, he may apply to a magistrates’ court. Because Mr X had this right to apply to the court this part of his complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
14. I have discretion to investigate his complaint even though he had this right. Mr X says he was not aware he could challenge the costs. Nevertheless, he did have that right, and, had he challenged the costs in court, the court would have decided whether they were excessive. This is not something the Ombudsman can decide. For that reason, I will exercise the general discretion open to me not to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Complaints procedure

15. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow its own complaints procedure.
16. While we would expect the Council to respond under its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further.
17. We will not look at the way a complaint has been considered by itself. We consider both the handling of the complaint and the substance of the original complaint. If we consider the original issue is not something that we would investigate then we will not look at the complaint about the complaints process. We do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. Mr X could have applied to the magistrates’ court if he believed the costs of the Council’s contractors was excessive. This is not a decision the Ombudsman can make. Also, we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of any failings in the complaints’ procedure alone, which warrants investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman