| Publishing organisation: | Scottish Public Services Ombudsman |
| Topic: | Renewal grants, Repairs |
| Determination: | Not upheld |
| Tenure: | Home owner |
Organisation:
| Perth and Kinross Council |
| Country of relevance: | Scotland |
| Report link: | Click here to view this document |
The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns relating to the issue of a Certificate of Completion by Perth and Kinross Council for works undertaken to her flat in 2004/2005.
Ms C purchased a refurbished second floor flat in May 2005. When she completed the purchase, Ms C was aware that there was no Certificate of Completion but had been told by her solicitor that it was passed as fit for habitation by Perth and Kinross Council.
Her flat had been the subject of refurbishment and repair, which was carried out by the owner at the time (Mr F). Some works were undertaken under a repairs notice (served under Section 108 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 on the owners by the Council in July 2004). Ms C stated that she was advised by Mr F that the works had been carried out in accordance with the Building Regulations.
Soundproofing to the flat
Ms C complained that a problem with poor soundproofing became evident when the other flats were sold and occupied. Initially, the owner/occupiers as a group approached Mr F about the problem but, lacking resolution, contacted the Council in May 2006, asking them for assistance.
Ms C stated that the Council's initial reaction about what they would be able to achieve was positive and they arranged to meet with Mr F to try to mediate a satisfactory solution.
However, she stated that the Council had subsequently informed her and the other owner / occupiers that there was no further action they could take on their behalf, because Mr F had informed the Council that none of the works undertaken – either under the repairs notice or as part of the refurbishment of the property – had involved disruption of the soundproofing.
Ms C stated that the Council had advised her and the other owners that there was no action available to the Council to take against Mr F under the Building Regulations and this was a private matter between the owner / occupiers and Mr F.
Ms C remained dissatisfied and pursued a formal complaint with the Council, because she believed that they had failed to carry out appropriate checks while the works were ongoing, despite these being the subject of a local authority grant (£30,000). She believed also that the Council had an obligation to pursue enforcement action against Mr F because he had carried out works without the benefit of a building warrant.
It appeared to her that the Certificate of Completion had been issued by the Council in error and she was dissatisfied, therefore, with what she saw as the lack of action on the Council's part to resolve her complaint.
She stated that her flat, in its current state, was impossible to sell because of the shortcomings in the soundproofing and fireproofing (because the insulation between the flats did not meet current standards) and she complained about the Council's lack of action to pursue Mr F with enforcement, or other action, to have the necessary work carried out.
Determination
The Ombudsman had no recommendations to make and found that all elements of the complaint were not upheld:
(a) Failed to ensure that grant-aided works were undertaken properly (not upheld).
(b) Failed to carry out appropriate checks before issuing a Certificate of Completion (not upheld).
(c) Failed to provide appropriate advice when a Certificate of Completion was issued (not upheld).
(d) Failed to take enforcement or other action (not upheld).