The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman cleared the council of any wrongdoing after complaints about the building inspector’s visits.
But they said the council had been at fault for its poor handling of complaints from the customer, named in the ruling as Mr F.
The issues dated to September 2021, when Mr F’s building was named as an agent for a building notice application at his home.
Shropshire Council carried out three inspections. In August and November 2022, it inspected works on the foundations, and roof trusses in February 2023.
Mr F said his builder had not allowed enough space to fit underfloor heating and the slab levels were at different heights, but the inspector said discussions took place “to allow a consistent floor to be achieved” and that work could continue.
By July 2023, the builder had left the job and Mr F told the council he had re-laid the floor, and taken advice from a surveyor who identified defects with the build.
The next month he asking the council to visit the site again, when “concerns” were raised with the build, including the roof design with new trusses.
A further site visit followed in November 2023. Here, the service manager said the discussion focused on “moving forward” to ensure compliance and remedial work to be completed.
The council said it would not charge Mr F for any further fees for inspections.
Mr F first complained to Shropshire Council in September 2023. His complaint was:
- Its building inspector had wrongly asked him to “compromise” when he raised concerns about the floor levels laid by his builder at the May 2023 inspection
- The same Inspector had failed to identify the multiple defects with the building work identified by Mr F’s surveyor and at the August 2023 site visit
- The council had failed to confirm in writing whether the concerns identified at the August 2023 site visit meant the building work failed to comply with building regulations
In November 2023, Mr F made a second complaint as his previous one was not answered. When another complaint was made the following month, the council said it had closed both cases. However, Mr F said he had not had a reply to either of his earlier complaints before the council took action.
Mr F then went to the ombudsman, which criticised its complaint handling.
“This caused Mr F unnecessary time and trouble, which we consider an injustice,” said the Ombudsman.
“The council agreed to apologise to Mr F. We considered this provided a fair remedy to the complaint, taking account also of an earlier commitment the council gave not to charge Mr F for additional building inspections required.”
A Shropshire Council spokesperson said: “Our duty in carrying out the building control function is to ensure that buildings are safe for those that use or live around them. We are pleased that the Ombudsman recognised that there was no fault in the way that our building control officers oversaw this development.
“The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the complaint was handled, there were unacceptable delays in responding and addressing the issues raised. We have issued an apology to the complainant for their time and trouble in raising the complaint and for any frustration and inconvenience caused.
“We take any findings by the Ombudsman seriously and have reflected on the lessons learned in improving our communications so that our responses are timely, accurate and comprehensive. “
link