Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his long-standing building control application for works carried out at his property. We have not investigated most of the complaint as issues are late and Mr X could have complained to us sooner. With the parts considered in time, we did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his outstanding regularisation application for building works at his property. He says it failed to sign it off despite works being inspected, failed to communicate after inspections, has inaccurately retrospectively charged for historic inspections, and has failed to keep proper records over nearly a decade. He says this has caused him significant frustration, distress and financial hardship during this prolonged process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Given the long-standing nature of this complaint and the time restrictions with our investigations in Paragraph 4, I considered this in more detail under the “Analysis” section later.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X. I considered his views and information sent.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Building regulation approval

10. Most building work requires building regulation approval. Building regulations set out requirements and guidance that builders and building owners are required to follow and consider. The purpose of the regulations is to make sure buildings are safe for those that use them or live around them.
11. A certificate of building regulations approval can be granted by councils acting as building control authorities, or by independent 'approved' inspectors. Councils employ building inspectors to carry out this work.
12. Building Regulations approval can usually be obtained in one of three ways:
• Full plans application. The owner or their agent submits plans for approval. The plans are checked for compliance with building regulations.
• Building notice application. The owner or their agent informs the Council or approved inspector of their intention to begin building work. The Council's inspector or an independent approved inspector will visit the site at various stages of the work to check compliance with building regulations.
• Regularisation application. This is for work that has already been completed without building regulations approval. It is used to get a certificate confirming the unauthorised work complies with building regulations. This can only be done by a Council Building Control service.
13. When carrying out their building control functions, councils will normally visit at various stages, but they are not required to do so and will not be present for the majority of the project. Councils are not expected to act as a site manager or 'clerk of works'.

Background

14. CNC Building Control is a partnership of five local authorities providing building control functions. This includes South Norfolk District Council, the subject of this complaint. In this statement, I refer to “CNC” actions. As CNC is carrying out the functions on the Council’s behalf, we hold the Council responsible for its actions.
15. Nearly a decade ago, Mr X submitted a regularisation application for works completed at his property (for Building Work 1 and Building Work 2). CNC acknowledged this and confirmed receipt of the application fee Mr X paid.
16. Between 2017 and 2023, records show CNC carried out 8 inspections. The 2023 inspection log records several observations and brief notes on work required, including fire safety requirements.

What happened – summary of key relevant events I am considering

17. In early January 2025, CNC emailed Mr X in response to a request for support for eventual building control sign off. CNC sent a list of points which remained outstanding from its previous visit in 2024. (CNC later confirmed this was a typing error, and it meant 2023). It asked Mr X to provide it with the required information to review. Mr X responded to each of the points. He wanted to discuss and finalise requirements ready for sign off during a site visit.
18. In late January 2025, CNC carried out an inspection. The log recorded uncompleted works, and it discussed outstanding issues with Mr X. It agreed a new description of works should include several new items in addition to the works applied for (originally Building Work 1 and Building Work 2). A few days later, Mr X emailed CNC with the information requested.
19. In mid-May 2025, CNC responded to Mr X, apologising for the delayed response. It reviewed Mr X’s information and noted the additional works completed or proposed. It repeated its previous assertion that fire safety requirements were still outstanding, which it raised in 2019 and 2023. It said what was needed to comply. It advised he could consult an architect for a design which it could approve. It would review what further fees would be appropriate given the expansion of works being inspected.
20. In June 2025, Mr X formally complained. He said during several visits, inspectors discussed transition from the original works applied for, to it quoting for the full refurbishment, but this did not happen. He said inspectors told him they would get back to him but never did. After the January 2025 inspection, CNC did not respond until four months later, which prompted Mr X’s complaint. Mr X asked CNC to discuss the requirements with him, as he tried to use an architect with little progress made.
21. The Council responded at Stage 1. It acknowledged it did not send a timely response to Mr X. It was aware the project had been ongoing for a while and evolved in complexity. As it remained incomplete, it could not issue a completion certificate until it met relevant standards. With the outstanding fire requirements, he needed to submit plans for it to approve in line with current regulations. CNC could not offer design advice, and an architect could reduce the risk of non-compliant works. It noted the original fee Mr X paid for his application included 2 site visits, but it had conducted 9 to date, so would result in additional charges. Mr X escalated his complaint and asked for copies of all records of his file.
22. In July 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It said as he carried out additional works beyond those in his original application, these would be considered unauthorised unless included in a new or amended application. It had to ensure all works completed without prior approval were regularised. This meant he could not appoint an independent approved inspector to complete sign off. The application had been open for nearly a decade and it said its service had not caused delays in the overall process. It also sent him copies of his case as requested.

Analysis

Prior to 2024

23. Mr X complained about CNC’s actions spanning several years, in relation to a process that started nearly a decade ago. As per Paragraph 4, most of this complaint is late. We expect complainants to contact us within 12 months of the matters complained of. We may exercise discretion if we consider there are good reasons why a complaint was not made sooner, and we consider that we could still carry out an effective investigation. The restriction is there because the longer ago events happened, the harder it is to investigate.
24. Mr X raised some specific concerns in his formal complaint which I will not consider further. These happened several years ago and are late. This includes:
1. an inspector visit where Mr X said they would classify his property as a commercial premises. He challenged this with CNC and he said it later denied this; and
2. concerns about contradictory inspection outcomes by different inspectors. The last inspection prior to his formal complaint was in 2023.
25. Mr X said he did not realise CNC had not signed off the work in his regularisation application, despite them being carried out and inspected, until 2025. However, I am not persuaded this means Mr X could not have reasonably complained sooner.
• Over the years, Mr X was aware he carried out additional works beyond the scope of his regularisation application. This went on to form a much larger project overall and these expanded works fell under this application, so must be signed off as a whole.
• He said CNC said at several points it would put together an additional package for full refurbishment, but it never did. He said after visits CNC said it would get back to him but did not. If he felt CNC failed to do as it said, this could have formed the basis of a complaint at the time and much sooner.
• He was also aware not everything had been completed to CNC’s satisfaction by the last inspection in 2023. It appears Mr X did not contact CNC again for nearly two years until January 2025 and then made his formal complaint months later.
• Mr X also said he did not complain sooner as he did not want to damage the relationship with CNC as he depended on it to resolve matters.
26. Having carefully considered the above, on balance, I do not consider there are good reasons why Mr X could not have formally complained to the CNC or Council sooner or to us. He knew of general issues at the time. I also appreciate he thought complaining may be a risk, but this has spanned over a prolonged period. It is possible an earlier complaint could have progressed this sooner. Therefore, I will not be exercising discretion to consider events before 2024.
27. Another consideration is it would be difficult to come to sound conclusions on past decisions made or what historically happened due to the passage of time. Mr X disputes some of CNC’s version of events but it is unlikely we can establish material facts with reasonable confidence.

2024 onwards

28. I can consider events from 12 months before Mr X came to us. This is from August 2024. However, from evidence seen, the most recent event on file prior to Mr X’s 2025 complaint was an inspection from 2023. This means I can pragmatically consider from January 2025. This includes residual matters from Mr X’s formal complaint.
29. The Council acknowledged its four-month delayed response to Mr X’s email in January 2025. It has apologised for this already and I consider this appropriate.
30. I am satisfied CNC has provided a list of outstanding items and main areas of non-compliance in May 2025 to Mr X. Mr X may disagree with some of these, but this is not fault by CNC. We cannot get involved in matters of professional judgement. One point it has asked for since 2019 is design plans to comply with fire safety requirements. But if Mr X has not done this to CNC’s satisfaction, and other required works, then it logically flows that CNC will not complete sign off.
31. I recognise Mr X wants CNC to finish the original regularisation application and then release the additional works to an independent inspector. But only building control authorities can approve works under this type of application. Mr X has not amended or made a separate application, which is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner or builder. This means CNC can only issue a completion certificate if it is satisfied all works, both original and additional out-of-scope work, meets the regulations. This is not fault by CNC.
32. Mr X disputes the charges for additional inspections. He is of the view he paid them at the time as CNC likely charged him when he booked them. Mr X has not provided evidence of this. CNC only have records of his original application fee. Given the passage of time, I cannot practically investigate this. On balance, CNC are entitled to pursue these charges if it has not received payment for them.
33. On this point, CNC said its established procedure is to calculate and apply any additional charges at the point a completion certificate is issued, once it knew the extent of site visits. So, it had not assessed additional costs until Mr X’s complaint. It also said it now revised its procedure to notify clients in writing when they reached their allocated number of inspections and additional visits would incur charges. I do not find fault with this and consider this appropriate.
34. Mr X raised concerns about the records CNC sent. Again, due to the passage of time and for proportionality, I am not investigating the substance of these or alleged inaccuracies. I would not be able to evidentially establish the material facts around them or inspections, this includes Mr X’s observation that CNC has no record of the visit described in Paragraph 24, point a). But I note the email Mr X provided does not refer to CNC specifically visiting, but a member of the Fire Service. They then refer speaking to a CNC officer. The circumstance of any alleged CNC visit is not clear, and I cannot make a finding on this.
35. I have seen the inspection records and some are generally brief, and for some visits (the later ones) there are clearer notes of what was viewed and advice given than for others. While records could have been more detailed, I am satisfied though that notes generally recorded what the inspector saw on site, which is what I would expect it to. I can see points referenced about work requested or things that needed to be changed, which is sufficient in my view. Mr X or his builder would likely have been told this at the time too.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have not investigated most of the complaint as it is late. For the parts I have considered, I do not find the Council at fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman