Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a building control matter and a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X purchased a new build property. The Council’s building control service was used during the construction of the property, and it issued a completion certificate for the work. Mr X has since discovered problems with the property. He believes the building control officer failed to ensure the building complied with regulations. He also says the render used by the developer does not comply with the planning conditions. Mr X says the Council should contribute towards the cost of the repairs needed to his home.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Council’s do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control. We also would not expect a planning authority to monitor a development after permission is granted to ensure compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
5. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly looked into Mr X’s concerns about a possible breach of planning control before deciding it did not have any grounds on which to take enforcement action. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
6. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s building control service. Most building work will require building regulation approval. The regulations will set the standards for design, construction and ensure the health and safety of the people living in or around the building.
7. Mr X says the Council failed to ensure building regulations were met. He says the issues with the property would have been noticed had the Council properly inspected the works. However, while the Council will normally visit the site at various stages of the build, it does not act as a clerk of works or a site manager and the responsibility for compliance with the regulations rests with the building owners and builders. The council’s role is to maintain the building standards for the public in general rather than protect the private interests of an individual.
8. Mr X says the Council should pay towards the cost of repairing the defective building work. However, caselaw has established that where a council has issued a completion certificate and the work is later found to be substandard, liability for any defects rests with those that commission the work and those that carry it out. We therefore cannot hold the Council responsible for substandard work by the builder and it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman