Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued a completion certificate for substandard work carried out on a property he has since bought. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a completion certificate for an extension built on his home in 2015, before he bought it. He wants the Council to contribute 50% of the cost to correct the work.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• 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 considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X bought his home in 2017.
5. In 2015 the Council issued a completion certificate for an extension to the property.
6. Mr X says the Council was wrong to issue the certificate because the tiles used on the roof of the extension were not compatible with the pitch of the roof.
7. In 2015, the Council approved the building control application for an extension. A condition of the permission states the tiles used on the roof must be compatible with the pitch. The roof pitch on the application drawings was 12 degrees.
8. The Council says its records show an Officer inspected the extension when the roof structure and insulation were in place. Records do not confirm whether the tiles were present during the inspection.
9. Mr X says the roof pitch is 9 degrees. The tiles used are not compatible with the reduced pitch. The roof now leaks and there is mould on the ceiling.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. Case law (Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) and Governors of Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd & ORS (1984)) sets precedent. This established that primary responsibility for substandard work lies with those who commission it and those who carry it out.
11. 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 most of the project and do not act as a ‘clerk of works.’
12. A completion certificate is not a guarantee that works are up to the required standard. All the certificate can and does state is that, as far as the Council could tell when inspected, building work complied with the Building Regulations.
13. When buying a property, it is for the buyer to satisfy themselves that any work has been completed to a satisfactory standard; they should not rely on a completion certificate alone. Mr X was not the owner of the property when the Council issued the completion certificate. He is only affected by the matter now because of his decision to buy the property. The courts have decided the Council is not liable for the cost of putting right substandard work carried out by a third party and we cannot say its decision was wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we cannot require the Council to contribute to the cost of correcting the defective roof.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman