Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a building control matter. This is because the substantive issue concerns a dispute over whether Mr X’s building work complies with the Building Regulations and it would be reasonable for Mr X to take this to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has not issued a completion certificate confirming his building work complies with the Building Regulations, despite signing off a similar extension to his neighbour’s property which he says has defects. He also believes the Council’s advice regarding his building work was incorrect and that he is entitled to a partial refund of the fee he paid, which he considers is too high.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s decision to sign off Mr X’s neighbour’s building work does not show fault in its handling of Mr X’s case; the Council must consider each case on its merits and it has explained there are differences between the cases which justify taking a different approach. We could not in any event say the Council’s approach to Mr X’s neighbour’s case is correct and that its decision on Mr X’s case is wrong.
9. The fact the Council has declined to issue a completion certificate for Mr X’s building work suggests it considers there are issues outstanding. In this case Mr X may ask the Council to relax or dispense with the particular requirement(s) it considers have not been met. If the Council refuses to do this Mr X may appeal to the Planning Inspector. I have seen nothing to suggest it would be unreasonable to expect Mr X to follow this process and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.
10. We cannot in any event decide whether the Council or Mr X is correct about the requirements of the Building Regulations or recommend it issues Mr X a completion certificate against its judgement. There is therefore no basis for us to say the Council must reimburse part of Mr X’s fee, which is slightly below the level of charges which apply for his development.
11. We will not separately investigate Mr X’s concerns about the conduct of the Council’s building control officer because the officer’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to ask to Council to relax or dispense with the requirements of the Building Regulations and appeal against any refusal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman