Health and Safety Executive

4. Mr N complains that between July and August 2024 the HSE rejected his complaint about an Authorised Inspector (AI). He says this meant he was never able to have his complaint properly considered by the HSE.

5. Mr N also complains the BSR, which is part of the HSE, would not address the concerns he raised with it.

6. Mr N also complains about how the HSE dealt with his complaints.

7. Mr N has told us these issues have caused him stress and anxiety and negatively impacted his mental health. He has also explained there is a serious issue with his home, and he cannot fix it until he can resolve these issues. Mr N has also said this means he has needlessly suffered the impact of harmful pollutants being in his home, which means his physical health is also suffering.

8. Mr N would like the HSE to improve its service so it can resolve his case. He would also like it to make service improvements to avoid further delays in the future.

9. In July 2024 Mr N raised a complaint with the HSE. Mr E complained about the conduct of the AI when it dealt with his complaint about possible building regulation violations and how it was handling his enquiries. Mr E believed how the AI dealt with the issues was not in line with the code of conduct in place at the time.

10. The BSR is an independent body, initially established within the HSE that is responsible for overseeing the safety and performance of all buildings in England.

11. On 5 April 2024, the HSE became the designated body to approve Inspectors for the purposes of Part 2 of the Building Act 1984 in England and Wales. At this time HSE, as part of its role as the designated body, adopted the complaints procedure and sanctions regime as used by the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (CICAIR).

12. CICAIR was formerly the body designated by the Secretary of State to maintain the register of AIs. These were private sector building control bodies qualified to check and sign off that building projects complied with Building Regulations. CICAIR handled complaints against AIs and could impose sanctions or remove them from the register if necessary. The CICAIR Approved Inspector regime ended on October 1, 2024.

13. In its initial complaint response, the HSE told Mr N it could only investigate complaints against an AI once it has exhausted its internal complaints procedure. The HSE told Mr N Should he wish to pursue his complaint, he should contact the AI directly to raise a complaint with them.

14. Mr N responded and told the HSE he had already provided evidence that he had complained to the AI and completed its complaints process. Following further correspondence, the HSE continued to decline to investigate Mr N’s complaint on the grounds that he had not fully completed the AI’s complaints process.

15. As Mr N remained unhappy with how the HSE was dealing with these issues in October 2024 he raised an official complaint. The HSE issued Mr N its tier one complaint reply on 20 September 2024.

16. As Mr N was not satisfied with how the HSE dealt with his complaint he escalated the issues through tier two and three of the complaints process.

17. As this still did not resolve the issues Mr N complained about in January 2025 he approached our office via his MP.

The HSE rejected Mr N’s complaint about the AI

21. Mr N told us he believed he had completed the AI complaints process in full. He confirms that if the process was not followed in full that was the fault of the AI as he had made every effort to complete the process. Mr N also told us when he made his complaint to the HSE he included information to show the HSE he had completed the process.

22. Mr N explained once he had made his complaint to the HSE it then contacted the AI. Mr N believes it was due to this contact the AI then changed course and proceeded to follow elements of the internal complaints procedure it had not completed previously.

23. In its complaint replies the HSE told Mr N it did not accept his complaint as he had not fully completed the AI’s complaints protocol. It also explained its staff had acted appropriately and professionally. It set out that it reviewed his submissions carefully, and it contacted the AI when it had further questions.

24. To consider if the HSE’s decision not to accept Mr N’s complaint for investigation was reasonable we have reviewed the relevant CICAIR complaints protocol. This protocol sets out how CICAIR, and the HSE during the transition period, would consider complaints brought against an AI by a dissatisfied party.

25. Section 9 of the protocol sets out the conditions that must be met for the HSE to accept a complaint for further consideration. Point 9.1.1 of the protocol says: ‘The complainant has exhausted the AI’s internal complaint procedure. The Assistant Registrar may verify this with the AI before accepting the complaint’.

26. To decide if the HSE followed this process we have considered evidence of the contact between the HSE and AI in relation to Mr N’s complaint.

27. There is evidence the HSE asked the AI to confirm if it had fully completed its complaints procedure. In response the AI told the HSE: ‘Mr N was not happy with our original response and didn't feel that the issues that he has raised were answered. Within our complaints procedure he can ask for this to be investigate this further and provide a further response. I cannot see that this has happened within our files therefore can you please ask Mr N to make contact directly to myself detailing his further complaint and I will arrange for this to be re-investigated by a senior member of the team’.

28. The HSE then asked for further clarification as Mr N had already provided it with some information to show he had further raised his complaint. The AI then told the HSE it was at an impasse and therefore it haven’t enacted item 5, which is the offer of mediation. It confirmed if Mr N feel it would be helpful it would meet and discuss the issues in person. It also confirmed if Mr N feels this would not be beneficial then they could say it had exhausted matters under its complaints process.

29. The HSE passed this information to Mr N in its response on 29 August 2024. At that time, it told him that its designated power to deal with complaints about AI only lasted for a limited time from 5 April 2024 until 1 October 2024. This was to cover the transition from one regime to another. As this was the case even if it did accept his complaint it would not have time to complete any investigation before 1 October 2024.

30. The HSE told Mr N that it would pass the details of his complaint to the newly formed BSR. This was because from 6 April 2024 the BSR took responsibility for regulatory oversight.

31. We have seen evidence the HSE did confirm with the AI that it had not completed its complaints process fully. This was still the case when the HSE gave Mr N its final decision. We know Mr N is concerned that it was because of the intervention of the HSE.

32. After the HSE contacted the AI it offered to continue its complaints process. This confirms that the original decision of the HSE not to accept Mr N’s complaint was reasonable.

33. We acknowledge it was not Mr N’s fault the AI had not fully completed its complaints process. We can understand Mr N being frustrated at this.

34. The HSE’s decision not to accept Mr N’s complaint was in line with the CICAIR complaints protocol.

35. As this is the case, we will take no further action.

The BSR would not address the concerns Mr N raised with it

36. Mr N told us that in October 2024 the HSE told him it was passing his complaint to the BSR. He later received a response from the BSR that explained as the issues he was complaining about were before 6 April 2024 it was unable to investigate his complaints. Mr N does not understand this decision as he only sent his complaint to the BSR after the April 2024 date it quoted.

37. To establish the powers the BSR had to investigate Mr N’s complaint we have considered the legislation that gives BSR its powers: Section 2 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

38. Statutory Instrument 2024/104 of the ‘Building Safety Act 2022 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024’ brought into force a number of provisions of the Act. Part of this change was to expand the BSR’s oversight to include formal investigations. These changes became effective on 6 April 2024.

39. Changes that took place at that time also included the start of registration for the new role of Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs) to replace the role of AIs. Statutory Instrument 2024/110 of the ‘Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc) (England) Regulations 2024’ introduced the role of RBCA.

40. The legal powers that give the BSR its powers set out that it can investigate breaches of its Professional Conduct Rules (PCR) or Operational Standard Rules (OSR). Both the PCR and OSR standards both also became mandatory on 6 April 2024.

41. Mr N first contacted the BSR in July 2024. From the evidence available to us, the BSR opened an investigation file in November 2024 and sent a confirmation to Mr N.

42. The BSR told Mr N it could not apply its standards retrospectively which means it cannot determine that conduct which pre-dates 6 April 2024 amounts to a contravention. This is because the standards were not in force at the time. It also confirmed the legislation which compelled AIs to abide by the CICAIR complaints protocol had by then been repealed and so could not continue to be enforced.

43. The BSR has accurately explained the effective date from when it could legally enforce. This is why when the HSE told Mr N it was passing information about his complaint to the BSR it was only doing so as information. There was a transition period from April 6 2024 to October 1 2024 for the HSE to still consider issues prior to 6 April 2024. This transition period was set out in legislation in Statutory Instrument 2024/104. This also confirms that after 1 October 2024 the HSE’s powers to investigate under the previous regime ended.

44. When the BSR gave its decision to Mr N it told him that it had carefully reviewed the information in his case. It told him it had logged this information, and its inspection team would consider it, with scope to form the focus of its future inspection. It also confirmed if it found evidence of contraventions of the OSR or PCR since 6 April 2024 it would consider taking appropriate enforcement action.

45. The BSR did not have the legal power to investigate the issues Mr N wanted it to. We understand Mr N was frustrated that the HSE never fully considered his complaint, we are sorry this is the case, and can understand his disappointment here.

46. As the BSR had no legal power to investigate in the way Mr N wanted it to, there are no indications of maladministration in its decision. As such, we will take no further action.

How the HSE dealt with Mr N’s complaints

47. Mr N complains there were unnecessary delays in his case being progressed and he often had to make further contact to chase responses.

48. In its tier two complaint response the HSE told Mr N: ‘I appreciate this experience has been unnecessarily stressful, as we transitioned work between two regimes taking different approaches to regulation and the delays you have experienced whilst waiting for this update are unacceptable. I apologise for that I will feed this back to the team handling and remind them of the importance of timely communications.

49. The HSE has therefore acknowledged a delay in dealing with Mr N’s complaints. To establish how long the HSE should take to deal with a complaint we have considered the standards set out in the ‘Complaints about HSE’ Guidance.

50. This published guidance sets out that the HSE response times. Which are: • Initial response to correspondence – ten working days • Tier one – 15 working days • Tier two – 20 working days • Tier three – 20 working days.

51. Some of the delays Mr N complains about are when the HSE took a few days to respond to his enquiries. We cannot see these days amount to maladministration as we can see the guidance sets out that the HSE have ten working days to respond to correspondence.

52. Mr N also complains it took the HSE longer than it should have to give him its initial response. Mr N made his initial complaint on 24 July 2024. The HSE acknowledged his complaint on 26 July.

53. The next contact from the HSE was on 9 August when it confirmed it had received documents Mr N had provided and it had contacted the AI. This email gave Mr N the original decision that it could not investigate his complaint as he had not fully completed the AI’s complaints process.

54. We cannot see there is any unreasonable delay in this case. The guidance in the CICAIR Complaints Protocol sets out that it aims to complete an investigation within 100 working days. It does not include any timeframe to give an initial decision that it will not investigate a complaint. This part of the process is not part of the complaints process so we cannot measure it against the timeframes given above.

55. Mr N continued to dispute the decision given by the HSE. In an email on 29 August 2024 Mr N told the HSE: ‘I would also like raise I have an issue with this current handling of this complaint by HSE’.

56. The HSE issued its tier one complaint reply on 20 September, 15 working days later.

57. On 17 November Mr N asked the HSE to escalate his complaint to tier two of the complaints process. The HSE issued its tier two complaint response on 5 December, 14 working days later. This is 14 working days later. The HSE sent both these responses within the timeframe set out in the ‘Complaints about HSE’ Guidance.

58. Mr N contacted the HSE again on 6 January 2025 confirming he wanted to escalate his complaint to tier three of the complaints process. As the response time to deal with a tier three complaint is 20 days a response was due on 3 February 2025.

59. As the HSE did not have a complaint response ready on this date it contacted Mr N to apologise.

60. The HSE sent its full response to Mr N on 7 February, three days outside its target timeframe. Given the HSE contacted Mr N on the day it was due to respond and apologised, and then sent the response three days later, we do not consider this amount to a failing.

61. This is because the HSE acted in line with our ‘Principles of Good Complaint Handling’ that say a public body should: ‘Acknowledge the complaint and tell the complainant how long they can expect to wait to receive a reply’.

62. We can see that there has been one delay in the process. That delay was the BSR opening an investigation in response to Mr N raising his concerns about the AI. Mr N first complained to the BSR in July 2024. This complaint was not initially actioned as the HSE were at that time considering these issues under the CICAIR complaints protocol.

63. When the HSE closed its previous complaints the BSR opened an investigation on 1 November 2024. The BSR contacted Mr N on 27 November 2024. The transition took place on 1 October 2024, the HSE transferred any unresolved cases to the BSR on that date. As it took the BSR until 27 November to contact Mr N the HSE accepted this was an unreasonable delay.

64. We can see from the BSR’s responses that the delay had no impact on its decision because the BSR had no legal power to act as Mr N wanted it to. We have explained this fully above. In relation to this delay the HSE has acknowledged it, apologised and at the time gave a direction to the BSR to respond to Mr N.

65. To decide if this was enough to put right the impact on Mr N we have considered our Principles for Remedy. Our principles that Where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, the public body responsible should take steps to provide an appropriate and proportionate remedy.

66. In deciding what to recommend, we look to put the person affected back into a position where they would have been, had there not been a negative impact on them.

If this is not possible, for example, where the injustice has been caused by distress or unnecessary pain, we may suggest that a financial payment is made to the complainant.

67. Our scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent the Ombudsman’s judgement about the sort of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend.

68. We understand Mr N was frustrated the HSE had not dealt with the issues promptly. We consider this impact would be at level one of our Severity of Injustice Scale.

69. A case will generally be level one if we consider the person affected has experienced a low impact injustice such as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. This would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration, and where there are no other adverse effects or ongoing wider impact.

70. If we judge a case to be at level one of our scale we will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases. As in this case the HSE have issued an apology we can see that it has taken the action that we would expect to see. As the HSE have already taken action to put right the impact of this failing, we will take no further action.

71. We understand this will be a disappointing decision for Mr N. We hope the clear explanations given above are helpful to him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr N’s complaint about the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Mr N brought his complaint to us as he remained unhappy the HSE would not investigate his complaint. We also know Mr N is not satisfied with how the HSE dealt with the service complaint he made when it would not change its original decision. We are sorry to hear about the negative impact this had on him.

2. Having reviewed all the evidence available to us we will take no further action. We have seen no indication that anything went wrong with how the HSE dealt with the issues Mr N has complained about. This is because HSE followed the relevant guidance when it told Mr N it would not consider his complaint further. We can also see the HSE followed its complaints procedure when dealing with Mr N’s complaint about its service.

3. There was a delay in the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) starting its investigation of Mr N’s complaint. We have decided the HSE has done enough to address this delay, as the delay had no impact on the outcome of the investigation. We have set out below in detail how we considered Mr N’s complaint.