Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Building Regulation approval for defective works. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy from the builder involved by way of the courts if no liability is accepted.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council approving the Building Regulations completion for his home which he says has a defective roof design. This has led to dampness and considerable expense to rectify the problems. He believes the Council should take some responsibility for the costs which he has incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council failed to notice that the builder of his home had used a different method of roofing the property to the approved plans and that this would not have met the Building Regulation requirements. Because of this the property has developed dampness problems in the roofspace and led to considerable expense to remedy.
7. The Council says the building regulations application did not include full details of the roofing system applied but that the builder was responsible for ensuring that the works he carried out were in keeping with any plans and the regulations. The contractor who provided inspection service told Mr X that only certain stages of the building process are subject to inspection. The closure of the wall cavities in the roof area was not a stage in the construction when inspections were carried out.
8. Primary responsibility for building work and compliance with the Building Regulations lies with the building owners and the builders. Mr X bought the property in 2016 and he has only recently identified faults which he says are building defects. If the builder does not accept liability for the claimed defects, then he could reasonably seek a remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about Building Regulation approval for defective works. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy from the builder involved by way of the courts if no liability is accepted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman