The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council contributed to the delayed opening of a new community facility. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, the claimed injustice is not a direct result of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains the Council allowed a developer to delay building a community facility which formed part of a new housing development. Mrs B also says the Council took over one year to sign off the facility once the developer notified the Council the build was complete. Mrs B says these delays meant her business was not able to use this facility and she had to cancel several events. Mrs B would like the Council to pay her compensation for the money her business lost because of the delay before the facility opened.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In response to Mrs B’s complaint, the Council said: The developer was required to deliver this community facility before 50% of dwellings at the site were occupied. The developer met this requirement.
The Council had no powers to enforce delivery of this facility sooner than what was included in the development agreement.
The facility was predominantly finished and notified for completion in 2021, but it was not considered to have reached the suitable standard. This was because some items were outstanding and other matters required remedial works.
The Council’s surveyor worked with the developer to resolve these matters, but this took some time to achieve, and it was not until 2022 that a completion certificate was issued by the Council.
There were significant delays in the building supply chain during this period.
At no point were completion dates guaranteed.
The parish council, as end user of this facility, was involved in all site inspections and agreed the threshold of what was considered acceptable.
This process can take some time, but the Council will review this case to see if there are opportunities to speed up this process for future developments.
It will not offer Mrs B compensation for the cancelled bookings.
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint.
The information does not suggest there is enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
The Council has explained that the developer met the agreed requirement to provide this community facility before 50% of dwellings had been occupied. This meant the Council could not take enforcement action against the developer for not completing this facility earlier.
Also, the Council has explained the factors which meant it was not in a position to issue a completion certificate for the development before 2022. Other parties were involved in this process and the Council needed to be satisfied the build met the building regulations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation of the Council’s handling of these inspections.
In addition, even if there was some delay by the Council, I am not satisfied there is a direct link between the alleged fault by the Council and the injustice Mrs B claims to have suffered.
I can understand why Mrs B wanted this facility to be ready as early as possible so her business could use it. But, it was for Mrs B to decide how best to run her business during this period. It was Mrs B’s decision to book events before the facility had opened. This carried the risk the events would not go ahead if the building was not ready to be used. Any dispute about the handling of Mrs B’s cancelled bookings for the facility are between Mrs B and the operator of the facility.
So, an investigation is not justified.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, the alleged fault has not caused Mrs B an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman