Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a building control matter. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. The courts are better placed to decide if Mr X is entitled to compensation and who, if anyone, is liable for his family’s health issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly confirmed work to his neighbour’s property complied with the Building Regulations. The installer, who self-certified compliance with the Building Regulations, has now rectified the issue but Mr X claims he and his family have suffered health issues. He believes the Council is responsible for these issues and wants it to apologise and pay him compensation.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The courts have decided that councils do not take on responsibility for substandard work carried out by third parties even where they have signed the work off as compliant with the Building Regulations.
7. The Council did not issue a completion certificate for the work in this case; it simply decided there was no basis for enforcement action as it considered the work met the required standards and had been signed off by the installer, who was qualified to self-certify it.
8. If Mr X believes the Council is responsible for his family’s health issues it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against it at court. The courts are better placed to determine if the Council is liable or if liability should rest elsewhere; for instance, with Mr X’s neighbour or the installer themselves. It can also decide the amount of damages Mr X and his family may be entitled to. He may however wish to take legal advice before beginning any claim against the Council or any third party.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a claim against the Council at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman