Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 015 652)

Category : Planning > Building control

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 10 Feb 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council wrote to him and threatened legal action in relation to alleged building regulation and planning breaches. Mr X says the Council failed to contact him to discuss the matter before threatening legal action and he had difficulty contacting the Council’s building control team to discuss the issue. Mr X says he has been caused considerable distress by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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:
  • we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or
  • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X says the Council’s threat of legal action was based on incorrect information. He says he did not install a wood burning stove as claimed by the Council and the flue is not a fixed structure and therefore did not need planning permission. Mr X also provided the Council with evidence to show his multi fuel fire was installed and certified by a company under the Competent Persons Scheme.
  2. Mr X says he was caused considerable distress by the Council’s actions, and this could have been avoided had the Council contacted him. Mr X says the Council should confirm in writing that he did not do anything wrong. He also says the Council should be fined and he should be compensated.
  3. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Mr X. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and confirmed it will not be taking any further action in relation to the burner and flue. It accepts it sent the letter threatening legal action prematurely and it should have contacted Mr X first. The Council also acknowledges that its letter to Mr X should have included contact details for its building control manager. The Council says it will make changes to ensure similar issues do not occur in future.
  4. Mr X says the Council should be fined, but this is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings