Charging for faulty work—whether County Council responsible
A complainant claimed he had been charged by a County Council for faulty work carried out by the Council on connections to a water meter that stood at the boundary of his section. He explained that 20 years ago he had carried out work on the meter himself, and that this had proved satisfactory. Two years before approaching the Ombudsman, the Council had done work to remove the water meter. The complainant declared that this work had been carried out without his consent, and that problems had later developed, whereupon he had complained to the Council. The Council then replaced the couplings and the pipes but charged him for the replacement.
The complainant had kept the faulty pipes and coupling and was convinced that a split in the end of the pipe, and permeation of tree roots into the coupling had been the cause of the leak. He believed these problems had arisen because of faults in the workmanship of Council staff. He had tried to take this up with the Council but had been told that he must pay or have legal action taken against him.
In response to the Ombudsman’s inquiries, the Council provided documentary evidence that the work on the water meter had been carried out in response to a complaint from a member of the public.
It further explained that the policy of the Council was to rectify free of charge any fault in work of Council staff that became evident within six months. In this case two years had passed before any fault was evident. Moreover, it gave a technical demonstration of why the part supplied by the complainant was not faulty, of the mechanical strengths of the materials used, and of their ability to continue to function despite a jagged ending to the plastic pipe or permeation by tree roots into the coupling.
The Council therefore declined to accept liability, but offered as a gesture of goodwill to nevertheless waive charges in this case on a ‘no prejudice’ basis. The Ombudsman considered that this initiative of the Council was a very satisfactory resolution of the complaint, and discontinued the investigation on that basis. The complainant was equally pleased.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.