The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out home improvements after agreeing to do so. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that Council contractors caused damage to her property. This is because we cannot achieve what she wants. Matters of damage are best dealt with by the courts.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council agreed to carry out home improvements to her property under the Sustainable Warmth Programme but then reneged on that agreement.
She also complains the contractors hired by the Council to carry out works to other properties on her road, caused damage to her property.
Mrs X says this has caused her significant distress. She wants the Council to carry out the home improvements and put right the damage caused by its contractors.
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 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X applied to the Council for energy efficiency improvements to her property under the Sustainable Warmth Programme. This was a scheme run by councils on behalf of the Government.
The Council carried out work to some properties on Mrs X’s road. Mrs X’s property was not one of these and so she complained.
In its complaint response, the Council explained it had planned to offset the higher costs of the work to properties on Mrs X’s road by carrying out less expensive projects at other properties. This partially fell through when people pulled out of the scheme, leaving a shortfall of funds. As a result, it was only able to complete work on around half of the eligible properties on Mrs X’s road.
The Council’s original plan was partially unsuccessful when property owners pulled out of the grant scheme. As a result, it did not have enough funding to carry out improvements to all of the properties on Mrs X’s road, including Mrs X’s property. However, the Council was neither responsible for, nor had control over, the decisions of the other property owners. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. And even if we did investigate and find fault, although I recognise events have caused frustration to Mrs X, this would not be at a level sufficient to warrant investigation.
Mrs X said the Council-hired contractors caused damage to her property whilst carrying out work to other properties. The Council gave Mrs X a £50 voucher for damage to her garden. However, Mrs X says this is not enough and did not accept it.
Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because we cannot say what damage to her property the contractor or Council is liable for. The court is the only body which can decide on liability and negligence. It is reasonable for Ms X to claim through insurance or the courts.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and the courts are best placed to consider liability for damage to Mrs X’s property.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman