Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a scaffolding licence to a different company to that preferred by the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to issue a scaffolding licence to a third-party company whom she says was not her choice of contractor. She says the company granted the licence was unsatisfactory and she was given the wrong advice about the procedure.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X is a landlord of a property which required construction works. She says she applied for a scaffolding licence on the advice given to her by Council officers by telephone. She says communication was difficult as her calls were not returned and she subsequently was told that a company she rejected had been issued a licence.
6. The Council says scaffolding had already been erected on Ms X’s property before she made enquiries about a licence. This is contrary to the Council’s requirements which are listed on its website. It is necessary to obtain a licence before scaffolding is erected and the company must apply for the licence with details of its public liability insurance. If Ms X did not wish the company who was granted the licence to apply for it she should have refused to allow scaffolding to be placed on her property and dismissed the company.
7. The Council issued the licence to the company which made the qualifying application and Ms X’s relationship with the company is a private matter. If she believes the company acted improperly she could consider taking legal action against it.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case there is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the correct procedures and the scaffolding should not have been erected without the necessary licence being applied for.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a scaffolding licence to a different company to that preferred by the Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman