Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s interpretation of the Building Regulations. This is because we cannot decide whether the Council’s interpretation is correct. If Mrs X believes the Council should not require her to carry out additional work to comply with the Regulations it would be reasonable for her to appeal to the Secretary of State.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council has wrongly interpreted the Building Regulations and told her she needs to carry out work which she considers unnecessary in order to comply with the Regulations. She says the Council has refused to meet with her and her architect and that its actions have delayed her building work for more than three months, causing her stress and financial loss.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is not for us to determine the requirements of the Building Regulations and we cannot therefore say the Council’s interpretation and demands for additional work are incorrect. Interpretation of the Regulations is a matter of professional judgement and the Council has explained the reasons it considers the additional work necessary. Its advice to Mrs X and her architect has been consistent and there is not enough evidence of fault for us to question its approach.
7. Mrs X’s architect has applied the Council to relax the requirements of the Building Regulations and confirmed they intend to appeal against the Council’s refusal to the Secretary of State. This is the appropriate way for Mrs X to challenge the requirement for the additional work and it would therefore be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue an appeal in this case, if she believes she should not have to carry out the additional work.
8. We will not separately investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council refused to meet with her and her architect because we could not say this caused her significant injustice. Mrs X seems to believe they may be able to convince the Council to agree to their interpretation of the Regulations or to otherwise relax their requirements but there is no evidence any such attempt would be successful, given that the Council has been consistent in its position since January 2023.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Secretary of State.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman