Trading standards


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hounslow (17 003 267)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 11-Jul-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way the Council has responded to her complaints about a trader. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault causing an injustice to Mrs B.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (17 003 266)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 11-Jul-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the way the Council has responded to her complaints about a trader. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault causing an injustice to Mrs B.

  • Devon County Council (17 003 288)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 05-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr M's complaint about the way the Council's Trading Standards handled his complaint about misleading labelling. The matter, although he found it frustrating, has not caused Mr M a significant injustice.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (17 002 779)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 16-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has unreasonably decided not to prosecute a company that sold the complainant goods of an unacceptable quality. It is unlikely he would find evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant an injustice which warrants his involvement.

  • West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service (17 001 173)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 26-May-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about an investigation by trading standards officers on his business premises. He says the Trading Standards Service acted in a disproportionate manner. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

  • Westminster City Council (17 001 925)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 25-May-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint the Council failed to take action against sub-standard work completed by building contractors. Ms B also complains about the actions of the directors of the building she lives in, trespass and damage to her property. These are mostly civil or criminal matters for which Ms B has or had a right of remedy through the courts or with the police.

  • City of London (17 001 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 15-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider this complaint about Council officers acting to investigate or prevent crime.

  • Northumberland Council (16 006 707)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: The complainant, Mr B, has not been able to enforce the court judgement he has against Mr X because he has gone bankrupt. Mr B considers the Council could have prosecuted Mr X for fraud and he could then have been able to successfully make a claim against Mr X for the £11000 he is due. It is not possible to say that fault by the Council has caused Mr B's claimed injustice. There was delay by the Council but that has not caused Mr B significant injustice.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 015 523)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 17-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not help the complainant with something that is outside its remit. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Leicestershire County Council (16 017 380)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 14-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr T's complaint about the way the Council's Trading Standards team conducted a prosecution as it is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

;