Mr K instructed the service provider to help him buy a new residential property. After the purchase was completed Mr K found out that there were issues with the flat roof on a single storey extension.
Mr K complained to the service provider as he said he was not told at the time he bought the property that the extension did not have a building regulations completion certificate.
To resolve his complaint, Mr K wanted the service provider to pay for the costs of a new roof.
Mr K complained to the service provider within one year of becoming aware of the issue, and the service provider promptly responded, explaining that, given the age of the extension, they had followed standard practice.
Mr K complained that the service provider’s information in respect of his purchase was poor.
The service provider responded to his complaint and gave a detailed explanation as to why they considered their service reasonable.
Mr K was unhappy with the service provider’s response and escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
Mr K’s complaint was reviewed upon receipt, and was passed to the Early Resolution Team, who were of the view that the service provider had provided clear evidence that their service was reasonable. The Early Resolution Team therefore explained to Mr K his complaint lacked any reasonable prospects of success.
Mr K did not agree with the Early Resolution Team’s view, and so his complaint was passed to an Ombudsman for consideration.
The Ombudsman decided to dismiss Mr K’s complaint under Scheme Rule 5.7a) because the service provider was not responsible for issues with the roof, and that as the service provider had followed the usual steps, given the age of the extension, that any complaint would not be upheld. The complaint lacked prospects of success.
As the complaint was resolved by the Early Resolution Team, no case fee was payable.
