Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control/trading standards matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council signed off footings to his extension which were later found to be dangerous. He believes the Council did not properly carry out its role as Building Inspector and wants the Council to refund his building control fee. Mr X also complains about the Council’s Trading Standards team’s handling of his complaint about the builder.

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, made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X commissioned builders to build his extension in 2018. The builders served notice on the Council as Building Inspector but did not lodge a ‘full plans application’ setting out exactly what they proposed to do. The Council’s building control officer inspected the work on several occasions in mid-late 2018 and provided advice on what they could see. They felt the depth of the foundations were satisfactory but highlighted issues that needed to be resolved.
5. Mr X is unhappy the Council signed off the foundations, which he says were unsafe. He has instructed another builder to start the work from scratch and says he has lost over £100,000 as a result of the substandard work carried out by his builder. He reported his builder to the Council’s Trading Standards team but is unhappy with its handling of the case.

Building Control

6. Building regulations set standards for the design and construction of buildings to ensure the health and safety of people in and about those buildings.
7. Caselaw has established that primary responsibility for building work rests with those who commission the work and those who carry it out. This is typically the homeowner and their builder. A local authority may advise the homeowner/builder on compliance with the Building Regulations and, where it is instructed to inspect the work, it may sign off elements of the work and ultimately issue a completion certificate. But the courts have decided that it does not assume liability for substandard work.
8. The Council carried out several inspections and we cannot therefore say it did nothing for the fee Mr X paid. The issue in this case is with the qualify of the work carried out by the first builder.
9. As a result of the issues Mr X experienced he decided to instruct a private building control company to oversee work by his second builder and he was within his rights to do this. But it does not mean the Council should refund his building control fee and we cannot say it is liable for the first builder’s substandard work.

Trading Standards

10. Councils have powers to prosecute traders but are under no obligation to do so, even when it is clear the trader has committed a criminal offence.
11. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint about his first builder but the Council has explained the reasons it did not issue proceedings against them. The Council sought legal advice but did not consider there was a good chance of conviction. It is entitled in these circumstances to decline to prosecute and it is not for us to question the merits of its decision, which does not cause Mr X significant injustice in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman