Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council wrongly signed off various stages of her building works as compliant with the Building Regulations. She was forced to change builders mid-way through the project and defects were then found which she says have cost her more than £25,000 to put right. She also complains the Council failed to prosecute the builder for carrying out works which did not comply with the Building Regulations.

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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Building Regulations provide a means for the local authority to maintain building standards in general, rather than imposing a duty to maintain standards in each particular case.
7. When carrying out their functions, 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 the great majority of the project and do not act as a ‘clerk of works’. 
8. The Council did not get to the point of issuing a completion certificate for the works carried out by the first builder but it carried out inspections and raised no concerns. The Council’s investigation into Mrs X’s complaint accepts it should have picked up on issues sooner and confirmed it would deal with the matter internally as a disciplinary issue. It also invited Mrs X to submit a claim if she believed it should pay the cost of bringing the work up to the required standard.
9. Caselaw has established that where a council signs off building work which is later found not to comply with the Building Regulations, the council does not take on liability for the substandard work; this remains with the builder and those who commission the work. We cannot therefore say the Council should compensate Mrs X for her loss or achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating the matter further. If Mrs X believes her case should be treated differently it would be reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council and argue the point at court.
10. While Mrs X considers the Council should have prosecuted the builder there is no obligation for the Council to take such action in every case. It is also likely that Mrs X, as the one who commissioned the work, would be considered equally liable for the failure to comply with the Regulations. Prosecution is therefore unlikely to be in Mrs X’s best interests and the Council’s decision not to take further action does not cause her significant injustice.
11. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman