Summary: Mr X complains the Council gave him wrong advice when he extended his outbuilding in 2014. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says in 2014 the Council wrongly suggested to him that he build foundations to the rear of the outbuilding he wanted to extend to address subsidence to the building caused by tree roots in the park adjacent to his property. He wants the Council to refund the £400 fee he paid for the Building Notice application in 2014.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2014 Mr X says his garden outbuilding was showing signs of subsidence caused by trees from the park behind his property. He applied to the Council to extend the building and paid £400 for his Building Notice application. He says the officer who visited him confirmed he could extend and suggested to him that he dig a foundation to the rear which would resolve the problems of cracks and movement he was experiencing. Mr X says the officer visited again to check the work his builder was carrying out and confirmed that the depth of the foundations was sufficient.
7. Mr X says since the work was completed the cracks and movement continued and in 2020 he complained to the Council about this. An officer visited Mr X and responded to his complaint at Stage 1 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
8. At Stage 1 the Council apologised for its delay in responding to earlier emails Mr X had sent about the matter. It said its site inspection notes indicated that the advice given at the time was that Mr X either submit a structural engineers design for the foundations because of the site conditions or keep the internal floor area of the extended building below 30 square metres to retain its exemption status. The Council said the latter option had been exercised as confirmed by the officer’s visit in 2020. It confirmed it would not refund the fee Mr X had paid but suggested he seek specialist advice for a design solution to the subsidence issue.
9. At Stage 2 of the complaints procedure and having carried out a review of its records and the correspondence on the case and spoken to the relevant officers in Building Control and Tree Services, the Council found no evidence that Mr X had been provided with the wrong advice. It said the officer who had dealt with the case had consistently rated the foundations as unsatisfactory and set out several options available, including the two set out in the Stage 1 response. It explained that by selecting the latter option, the building and its foundations were not controllable under the Building Regulations.
10. It did accept it had delayed in responding to his subject access request made under the data protection legislation and apologised for this. It also advised Mr X that if he thought the Council’s trees in the park were responsible for damage to his property he could make a claim to its insurers.

Assessment

11. The Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaint included a review of the site notes made at the time of the original application and work in 2014. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
12. The Council has told Mr X what he can do if he wants to make a claim to its insurers for damage to his outbuilding. This is not a matter we will investigate because if Mr X’s insurance claim is unsuccessful, he has a court remedy which we would reasonably expect him to use so placing it outside our jurisdiction.
13. If Mr X has any dissatisfaction with the Council’s response to his data request, he can raise this with the Information Commissioner which is the body best placed to consider such issues.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman