Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. We cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to ask the court to decide whether the Council has been negligent and is liable to pay compensation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, says the Council failed to challenge the complainant’s builder when they provided false information about building regulation contraventions in her loft conversion.
2. She says the Council’s site inspections were unfit for purpose and the Council has failed to use any of its powers to hold the builder to account.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to pay compensation, hold the builder to account and scrutinised building control inspections.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X including her correspondence with the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. When carrying out their functions under the Building Regulations, local authorities may visit at various stages, but the number and timings of any inspections vary by local authority and type of development. Local authorities are not present for the great majority of the project and do not act as a ‘clerk of works’.
9. Mrs X believes the Council was negligent for not identifying the defects with her building work and wants it to pay for the cost of remedial work to put it right. But the courts have decided that local authorities do not take on liability for any works which they have signed off, but which are later found not to comply with the Building Regulations; responsibility rests with those who commission the work (generally the homeowner) and those who carry it out. We cannot therefore hold the Council responsible for the defect or recommend it pays for the cost of putting it right.
10. If Mrs X believes this case should be treated differently he may wish to make a claim against the Council and argue the point in court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. And it is not unreasonable to expect her to ask the court to decide whether the Council has been negligent and is liable to pay compensation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman