Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council’s Building Control Inspector considered his Building Regulations application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the law does not hold the Council responsible for any financial loss caused by its Building Control Inspectors and he will have a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector against any enforcement action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council’s Building Control Inspector considered his Building Regulations application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complainant's and Council's comments. The complainant has been given the opportunity to comment before a final decision has been made.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X submitted a Building Regulations application for development in November 2018 to his house which involved the demolition of a wall. He says that the Inspectors refused to visit the site. He says that the Inspector then told him that the work did not comply with building regulations and enforcement action could be taken.
6. The courts have held councils are not liable for ‘pure economic loss’. 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 and the building became dangerously unstable. Here it was held that where a defect was discovered but there was no injury to a person or property other than the defect itself, 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. This decision was partly based on public policy considerations.
7. The Ombudsman considers that, where there is a dispute about the quality of work, it is the responsibility of the person commissioning the works to ensure the work is to the required standard. Building control officers are not supervising the work generally when considering compliance with the Building Regulations. This is a contractual matter which should be resolved by civil action by the owner against the builder.
8. The Council contests the allegation that the Inspector failed to visit appropriately and says that the work carried out by the builder was not correct and enforcement action would be considered.
9. The Ombudsman would not investigate the merits of the professional judgement of the Building Inspector for the reasons given above. Any enforcement action carries with it a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector which it would be reasonable to exercise.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the law does not hold the Council responsible for any financial loss and there will be a right of appeal against any enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman