Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Building Control. This is because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome or add to the Council's response. It is also reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy through the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued a Building Control completion certificate for his property even though it was not built with the approved roof system. He says despite admitting significant failures in its Building Control process, the Council refuses to investigate further or take corrective action, leaving the property’s structural safety and compliance uncertain. Mr X says the situation has caused distress and anxiety around the safety and legal status which has significantly impacted his well-being. He says he has spent a lot of time chasing basic information and faces potential costly legal action or funding remedial works himself. Mr X wants the Council to investigate the regulatory failures, require the developer to provide full as-built structural plans, carry out an independent compliance assessment and take necessary enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
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)
5. 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:

• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Although the property was built in 2017, I exercised discretion to consider the complaint because Mr X only became aware of the roof issues, when he complained to the Council in 2025.
9. The Council investigated Mr X's complaint and upheld it. It accepted fault in its Building Control process and apologised. The Council said it failed to keep satisfactory records, could not confirm whether a final inspection took place, and failed to identify unapproved changes to the roof design before issuing a completion certificate. It also explained a completion certificate is evidence a building appeared to comply with the Building Regulations at the time it was issued. It is not a guarantee of compliance or structural safety. Building Control inspections are limited checks carried out at key stages of construction and do not amount to continuous supervision of building work.
10. Even if it wanted to, the Council cannot take enforcement action now. The works were completed in 2017 and the time limit for serving an enforcement notice under section 36 of the Building Act 1984 expired in 2018.
11. The Council has already accepted and apologised for the faults in its Building Control process. An Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to prove with certainty whether the property complied with Building Regulations when built, or whether any defect has caused Mr X a financial loss. We also cannot require the Council to take enforcement action, force the developer to provide drawings, or order an independent structural assessment. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.
12. If Mr X believes the property was not constructed under the approved design, responsibility for that rests mainly with the developer and those involved in the design and construction of the property. Mr X has reasonable alternative legal remedies available, including pursuing a claim under any applicable structural warranty, and if this does not resolve the matter, he can seek a remedy through the courts. The courts are better placed to decide disputed issues of compliance, liability and any resulting losses.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome or add to the Council's response. It is also reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman