Summary: The complainant says the Council refuses to act against a builder he reported to its trading standards office. He also says it did not respond to his correspondence on time. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council refuses to prosecute a builder who he reported to trading standards

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed his complaint with him.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X employed a builder to carry out work on his house. He complained to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) that his builder increased the price midway through the work.
5. As this is potentially an offence under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations, the CAB reported the matter to the Council’s trading standards team.
6. The Council contacted Mr X and asked him to provide more information.
7. Mr X provided the information to the Council. After about three weeks he complained that he had not received a response.
8. After eight working days the Council acknowledged his complaint. It sent a full response after 28 working days.
9. It had reviewed the builder’s estimate which Mr X provided. It had also spoken to the builder who advised Mr X had changed his requirements during the build and the work needed was more than that which the estimate was based on. The Council told Mr X the matter was a civil dispute between him and the builder and not something it can resolve for him. It advised he should contact the builder direct and if he remains dissatisfied, he can take legal action.
10. The Council also apologised for the delay in its response. It said this was because of the need to get information from both Mr X and the builder before it could decide whether it needed to act.
11. Mr X escalated his complaint. The Councils final response confirms Mr X’s complaints are about an estimate from the builder, not a confirmed quotation. Estimates can rise and fall, and the Council will not take any further action.
12. The Council also confirmed it does not have the power to stop the builder from trading. Its investigation has not revealed any criminal actions and it has received no other complaints. Again, it apologised for the delay in its responses.
13. The Ombudsman cannot deal with a complaint about ‘rogue’ traders. We can only look at the way complaints about the trader was handled by the council.
14. We cannot normally deal with a complaint about the merits of a council’s properly taken decision. For example, a decision not to prosecute a trader. Councils have discretion on trading standards matters as to whether to investigate a particular complaint. Their decisions are taken in the general interests of the public, rather than the interest of the individual complainant.
15. The Council considered the information Mr X provided. It contacted the builder and concluded there was no breach of the Consumer Protection Trading Regulations. Having considered the information this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
16. The Council has acknowledged its responses to Mr X were late. It has apologised for this. I consider this is an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman