Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove a record of a building control contravention from its website registered against Ms X’s property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council refuses to remove an alleged contravention from its website registered against her property. She says despite its inaccuracies and a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the date of the work in question, she has been told by the Council the contravention can only be altered following a Regularisation Application which she believes is excessive in the circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Ms X’s complaint about this matter, the Council has explained that a bathroom ensuite installation requires Building Control approval. On the evidence it has, on the balance of probabilities, it has decided the ensuite was installed in Ms X’s property after 1985, the date at which the requirements changed, so that a contravention exists and a Regularisation Application is required to allow the works to become “authorised”.
7. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Ms X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is one it is entitled to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman