Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that his neighbour’s outbuilding is exempt from the requirements of the Building Regulations 2010. This is because the matter does not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly decided his neighbour’s outbuilding does not require approval under the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended). He is concerned the outbuilding is a fire hazard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

5. Mr X contacted the Council to report that his neighbour had erected a new outbuilding, which he described as “very large”, close to the boundary with his property. The Council investigated the matter but decided the outbuilding did not require approval under the Building Regulations. Mr X disputes the Council’s decision. He wants the Council to force his neighbour to comply with the Building Regulations or to properly explain its decision that the outbuilding does not require approval.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. There is no evidence the Council’s actions in this matter have caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X is concerned the outbuilding is a fire hazard but his concerns are entirely speculative. There is no reason why Mr X’s neighbour would have constructed the outbuilding in a way that resulted in any significant risk of fire and the outbuilding is located more than 1m from the boundary with his property, further reducing the chance of any significant impact on the safety of his property. It is also relevant that the outbuilding could have been amended slightly to resolve any dispute over the Council’s application of the exemption, but which would have resulted in no different level of risk from fire to Mr X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s decision does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman