Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s inspection of Mr X’s new roof by its Building Control Service. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council conducted only a minimal inspection of his new roof, missing major areas and failing to document faults. He says an independent inspection revealed significant defects and he wants a refund of the fee he paid the Council for its inadequate inspection.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. Including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X paid the Council for a Building Control inspection of his new roof. The inspector visited to check whether the works had been carried out in accordance with the relevant regulations. Access was limited but based on what the inspector could see her initial view was that a certificate could be provided for the work.
7. Subsequently, based on further evidence from Mr X, the Council changed its position to advise that due to defects with the work, it could not issue the certificate.
8. In response to Mr X's complaint about this matter the Council explained the limits of the building control inspection and that it is not its role to carry out an assessment of the quality of work done. It also explained that as the scaffolding had been removed and access to the internal roof space was limited, the inspection had been undertaken from the locations available. It said it was the duty of the owner/builder to ensure safe access for inspections. It found no fault with the inspection and refused Mr X’s request for a refund of the fee he had paid or to undertake a further inspection.
9. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s response to his complaint, there is no evidence to suggest fault sufficient to warrant an investigation. The inspection was limited because access was limited and the inspector based her initial view on what she could see. That the Council’s view changed when further evidence was provided is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman