Decision to shut down the company
14. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something went wrong in either CICAIR’s or HSE’s handling of this matter.
15. Our Principles of Good Administration (our Principles) say that public bodies should be open and clear about their policies and procedures. They also say organisations should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for decisions they make.
16. During its brief appointment to the role, HSE used the same processes and procedures as CICAIR had followed.
17. Mrs M complains that CICAIR and HSE shut down the company without sufficient explanation and with a lack of concern for the consequences.
18. It is agreed that CICAIR and HSE respectively decided to remove and then implemented the removal of the company from the Register. HSE published a Notice of Removal to this effect on 28 August 2024. This explained that CICAIR notified the company of its decision to do this in November 2023.
19. The Notice of Removal outlined that CICAIR’s actions were in line with section 6(2) of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations. This allows an inspector’s approval to be withdrawn after giving the inspector written notice of this. CICAIR has complied with this as noted above.
20. HSE continued with the process when it took over in April 2024. Section 7(3) of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations requires the designated body to maintain a list of inspectors who are approved and notify relevant local authorities when approval is withdrawn. It therefore acted as the law required it to when it removed the company from the Register in August 2023.
21. We are satisfied that CICAIR was the responsible body for approving inspectors, as well as withdrawing approval, at the time it decided to do the latter. We are also satisfied that it acted as the law says it should do when it decides to withdraw approval.
22. We are also satisfied that HSE then became the responsible body for ensuring the Register is maintained accurately, and that it acted as the law says it must do when it removed the company from this.
23. Mrs M is unhappy with the level of explanation or consideration of the consequences of its actions, or those of CICAIR. After considering the evidence, we think it acted in accordance with our Principles.
24. We see HSE published the Notice of Removal. HSE is not required to explain to the public what had prompted this, even if they were customers of the company. When Mrs M raised her concerns about this, HSE provided an explanation. It was open and clear when it told her in each of its complaint responses, as well as in some additional email exchanges, that the company did not meet the standards required of an Approved Inspector.
25. HSE referenced the relevant legislation and told Mrs M why it had removed the company from the Register. We have not seen a requirement for HSE to obtain a new Approved Inspector for customers. However, we note it signposted her to her local authority with a view to obtaining another Approved Inspector. This demonstrates that it considered the consequences, in as much as it was acknowledging the company’s customers would likely need to engage another company to complete any outstanding work.
26. HSE also suggested Mrs M should contact the company’s liquidators with regard to paying for a service it had not provided.
27. We acknowledge that Mrs M has been placed in a difficult position through no fault of her own. She has paid the company to provide a service, it has not done that, and she is now faced with having to pay for this for a second time. We have no doubt that this is worrying for her.
28. It appears the cause of the problem, and the resulting consequences, is that the company was not complying with the standards required to maintain its position as an Approved Inspector. The position Mrs M finds herself in is not the result of any error or failing on CICAIR or HSE’s part. It has complied with the law and our Principles. Because of this, there are no indications anything went wrong and we will not look at it further.
Responses to complaints
29. Mrs M is unhappy with the responses she received to her complaints. She says HSE has been very dismissive in its replies which she says are inadequate and unhelpful.
30. The UK Central Government Complaint Standards (Complaint Standards) say that organisations should give open and honest responses and set out what happened and whether mistakes were made. We are satisfied that HSE’s responses are in line with these Standards.
31. As we have set out previously, HSE provided responses to Mrs M’s complaints which contained explanations and reasons for its actions. As it did not make any mistakes with these, it was not appropriate for it to consider this further, but it did provide additional information to help Mrs M. We acknowledge that this was not what Mrs M wanted from HSE as she told it she wanted practical help. This was not something it was able to provide her with. Mrs M needed to contact her local authority about engaging another inspector to complete the work the company had failed to do. HSE also explained that the financial implications of this needed to be taken up with the company’s appointed liquidator.
32. We can appreciate the difficult position Mrs M is faced with. It must be a difficult and frustrating time for her. Based on what we have seen, HSE appropriately considered Mrs M’s compliant, in line with our Complaint Standards. Therefore, we will not consider it in further detail. We thank Mrs M for bring her complaint to us for our consideration and wish her all the best in the future.