Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to enforce building and electrical wiring regulations against a housing developer. This is because the circuitry issue at Mr X’s own property has been resolved by the developer and we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to enforce a clear breach of Building Regulations and the Institution of Engineering and Technology Wiring Regulations in relation to electrical vehicle charging outlets installed by the developer on a housing estate. He says while the developer has rectified the issue at his own property, it has not done so for other residents who may be at risk of an electric shock.

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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In responding to Mr X’s complaint about a breach of building and wiring regulations in connection with electrical vehicle charging outlets installed by the developer at a housing estate, the Council said there had been fault by the developer in failing to instruct sub-contractors to install and certify the outlets in accordance with the approved plan for vehicle charging.
7. It considered then whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action to ensure completion of the development in accordance with the approved plans. It decided it would not because it had only received Mr X’s complaint and the issue had been resolved by the developer at his property. It said if it received any further complaints, it would advise homeowners to take up the matter directly with the developer who had demonstrated a willingness to remedy the issue.
8. The Council has accepted Mr X’s view that there has been fault by developer. Having done so it then went on to consider whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action and it has decided it is not. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and the merits of it are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
9. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint we must consider not only the claimed fault but also the injustice caused to the complainant. Here, the issue at Mr X’s property has been resolved by the developer and other residents affected in the same way can contact the developer directly.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the circuitry issue at Mr X’s own property has been addressed by the developer and we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman