Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s neighbour’s development or the way it dealt with her complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we will not investigate complaint handling as a standalone matter. Any effect of building work next door on Ms X is a private law matter not involving the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council did not carry out an adequate inspection of roof replacement works carried out by her neighbour, which she says affect her property. Ms X is concerned damage to her property may materialise in the future and she wants the Council to reinvestigate.

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 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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s neighbour carried out works to their roof without first seeking approval from the Council. The neighbour also installed a party wall. These works join
   Ms X’s property. Ms X’s neighbours then submitted a regularisation application to the Council, which is a retrospective application to formally approve building works that have been carried out without prior approval or notice. Following the application, the Council made a site visit and inspected the roof to assess whether the works were compliant with building regulations. The Council issued a regularisation certificate and formally approved the works.
7. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the works and says the inspection was not thorough enough to determine if damage to her property may arise in the future. However, the Council is entitled to use its judgement to decide the works were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless there is evidence of fault in its processes. As the Council carried out an assessment in line with its policy, we would be unlikely to find fault in the procedure.
8. A regularisation certificate is not a warranty for the work, and the Council is not responsible for any subsequent defects. The primary responsibility for the works lies with the building owner and the building contractor. Works to or within 1m of a party wall may require an agreement between the adjoining owners under the Party Wall etc Act 1996, which also provides legal remedies for non-compliance and disputes. The Council has properly advised Ms X to consult a surveyor if she has any concerns.
9. Ms X also complains of poor complaint handling by the Council, and says the Council delayed responding to her. The Council has accepted it could have communicated more clearly with Ms X and has apologised. However, we will not investigate complaints handling alone where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and we will not investigate complaints handling separately. Any injustice to Ms X from building works next door is a private law matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman