Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about incorrect advice from the Council concerning a building control matter. This is because we cannot say the Council’s actions caused the losses Mr X claims.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly advised him that it did not hold any records relating to building work he had carried out at his property more than 15 years ago. The Council now confirms it does hold records relating to the work but says it was never finished or signed off. Mr X says that as a result of this the sale of his property fell through, resulting in losses of more than £5,000. He has also been unable to move as he wanted.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

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

My assessment

4. The Council accepts it wrongly advised Mr X about the existence of records relating to his building work and has apologised for this but it denies liability for the losses Mr X claims. Mr X believes the Council is responsible and wants it to reimburse him and pay him a further sum for his stress and inconvenience.
5. We cannot say the Council’s advice resulted in the injustice Mr X claims and we cannot therefore recommend it reimburses Mr X for his losses. They are simply too far removed from the statement which is at the heart of the complaint and we could not therefore establish any direct link between the claimed fault and Mr X’s injustice.
6. The issues preventing us from making this link are numerous and include the possibilities that:
• Had Mr X advised the buyer as it had suggested, the buyer’s solicitors (or Mr X’s) may have agreed an indemnity policy to cover the possibility of any incomplete work which did not comply with the Building Regulations;
• The buyer may have pulled out of the purchase for any other reason;
• Had Mr X or his builder completed the work and obtained a completion certificate for it at the time, he would not have been required to carry out any further work to show compliance with the Building Regulations. The sale could therefore have completed as intended;
• Any incomplete work may now be immune from enforcement action by the Council due to the amount of time that has passed since it was carried out;
• Mr X could have instructed a conventional estate agent whose fees became payable only on completion of the sale of the property, instead of the estate agents Mr X used which charged up front regardless of whether the sale completed;
• Mr X could have continued with the sale of his property to another party, meaning his estate agent fees would not have been wasted;
• Had Mr X carried out further work to his property before putting it on the market the value of the property may have dropped and the cost of the works would have reduced the net proceeds of sale.
7. If Mr X believes he can show a direct link between the Council’s advice and his losses he may wish to make a civil claim against the Council and argue the point at court; the courts are better placed to decide whether there is a link and the extent to which the Council can be held liable for Mr X's claimed losses.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot say the fault Mr X complains about caused the injustice he claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman