Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a report of a wrongly installed wood burning stove. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council :
• Failed to visit his neighbour to inspect a wood burning stove.
• Failed to contact the installer of the wood burning stove.
• Failed to enforce building regulations.
• Accepted a certificate of compliance after 30 days.
• Failed to respond to requests for information. And:
• Transferred responsibility for installation to the Heating Equipment and Testing Approval Scheme (HETAS).

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported fumes from a neighbour’s wood burning stove to the Council.
6. The Council accepts there was a delay in responding because the building control officer was on sick leave. But as it considered the work was unauthorised it arranged to visit the neighbour.
7. The Council says it later identified the stove was installed by a HETAS registered installer. A HETAS registration certificate was provided. The Council recognises this certificate was not provided within the 30 days following installation as proscribed by the building regulations. The Council says it contacted HETAS to address this issue and is satisfied to accept the certificate.
8. The building control officer notified the Council’s environmental health team about fumes from the neighbour’s stove. If Mr X is still experiencing issues with fumes entering his property he is free to contact the environmental health team.
9. HETAS is a government approved scheme. The Council has no control over the actions of HETAS or the professionals it registers for installations.
10. The Council acknowledged a delay in responding to Mr X’s initial contact. It has apologised for this. I consider the apology reasonable as, if the Council had visited earlier, I do not think the outcome would have been different. The delay was so minor I do not consider it merits a finding of fault.
11. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision. It has explained to Mr X that it has contacted HETAS and is content to accept the late registration certificate. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman