The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s charges for signing off his installation of a fire-suppressant system. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council charged him too much to confirm his installation of a fire-suppressant system met the Building Regulations. He does not believe the installation required separate sign-off from the Council and thinks it should change its processes.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
When carrying out certain building work a builder/property owner requires that work to be signed off as compliant with the Building Regulations. Relevant local authorities and private approved inspectors have the power to inspect works and determine whether they comply with the Regulations.
Mr X owns a property which he wants to turn into a house in multiple occupation (HMO). He had building work carried out to the property including the installation of a fire-suppressant system and the Council confirmed the installation needed to be signed off. The fee for this was £744.
Mr X instructed the Council to inspect the installation and issue a completion certificate for the work. They also advised further work was required to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. However, he was also in contact with the Council’s HMO licensing team who told him no further work was required and that the installation of the fire-suppressant system did not need to be inspected. Mr X therefore asked for a refund of his £744 fee but the Council refused. It explained the advice provided by the licensing team was incorrect as it related to a possible new process which was under review at the time. The Council had subsequently decided not to change the original process and the work did therefore require approval. It apologised for the incorrect advice but did not offer a financial remedy.
My assessment
The advice Mr X received from the Council’s HMO licensing team raised Mr X’s expectations regarding the possibility of a refund of his £744 fee but this is not a significant injustice and the matter does not warrant further investigation.
The Council applied the relevant charge for inspecting and signing off the work and its decision not to refund the fee was in-line with its processes at the time; it does not therefore amount to fault. If Mr X felt the fee was too high then he could have approached a private inspector to sign off the work.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in declining to refund Mr X’s payment.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman