Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of the developer rather than the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s building control team have classified a room advertised and approved for use as an office as "non-habitable” storage space. Mr X says this caused him distress and has reduced the value of his property.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

4. The Building Regulations set standards for the design and construction of buildings to ensure the health and safety of people in and about those buildings. The requirements of the Building Regulations vary depending on the nature of the development and its intended use.
5. Mr X bought a new-build property off-plan. The information provided by the developer stated one of the rooms (Room Y) would be “ideal for use as a home office, children’s playroom, or craft space”.
6. The developer instructed the Council to monitor compliance with the Building Regulations. As part of its role the Council considered the requirements of the Regulations in respect of Room Y and decided it was compliant. Its view was based on the developer’s confirmation that it would be used as storage space.
7. Mr X says it is clear Room Y was intended for use as an office and if it does not have approval for this it will affect the value of the property. He wants the Council to re-inspect Room Y and classify it for use as a home office.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council was appointed by the developer and relied on the information they provided about Room Y when signing the work off as compliant with the Building Regulations. This was not fault.
9. Mr X’s injustice stems from the fact the developer described and sold the property with Room Y as a home office but sought sign-off from the Council for use as storage.
10. If Mr X considers the developer’s description of the property was misleading he should raise this with the developer. He may also seek advice about what he could do to obtain Building Regulations approval to use Room Y as a home office. If he wishes to seek reimbursement for any costs that may be involved with this he may wish to consider a claim against the developer. We could not hold the Council responsible for any additional costs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of the developer, rather than the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman