Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about building work carried out to his property and signed off by the Council. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the quality of the work carried out by his builders and signed off by the Council.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate the actions of private building companies. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X appointed a private building company to extend his property. He paid the builder but is unhappy with the standard of their work. He has complained to the building company but they have declined to address the issues or refund Mr X. He has also spoken to the Council, which issued a completion certificate for the building work under its ‘building control’ functions. Mr X says the Council has not given him any help with the issue.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The substantive issue concerns the quality of the work carried out by the private building company and we have no jurisdiction over this company. If Mr X wishes to pursue the matter he should consider seeking independent legal advice.
8. Mr X suggests the Council may have been at fault for signing off the work as compliant with the Building Regulations but we cannot say it must pay to put it right.
9. 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.
10. 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)).
11. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about the building company or say the Council must pay to put right the work to his property. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman