Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly signed off building work to his property as complaint with the Building Regulations. This is because the Council is not responsible for substandard work carried out by the builder and we cannot therefore say it must pay for repairs.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about building work carried out to his property which the Council signed off as compliant with the Building Regulations. The roof has failed and Mr X says he has received an estimate for the work of £5,000.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s final response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X instructed builders to extend his property in 2008 and the builders completed the work in 2009. The Council monitored the work and issued a completion certificate for it. This confirmed that, as far as it could tell, the work complied with the Building Regulations.
5. Recently, the extension roof has started to leak. Mr X says this was the result of the builder using the wrong roof tiles. The builder has now ceased trading and Mr X has had an estimate of £5,000 to carry out repairs. Mr X would like the Council to pay this cost.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. When carrying out their functions under the Building Regulations, local authorities may visit at various stages but the number and timings of any inspections vary by local authority and type of development. Local authorities are not present for the great majority of the project and do not act as a ‘clerk of works’. 
7. On request and when satisfied after taking 'all reasonable steps' that the Regulations have been met, the Council must issue a completion certificate. But this is not a guarantee that all works have been done to the required 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.
8. Even if we could say the Council was at fault for issuing a completion certificate 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)). The issues Mr X has encountered are a direct result of work carried out by his builder and we cannot say the Council must pay for repairs.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman