Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Trading Standards service. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr X significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to take sufficient action against a company for alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection Against Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. He says that as a result of the breaches he made a private civil claim against the wrong company and his claim was therefore unsuccessful.

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 we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council’s Trading Standards service is intelligence-led and its role is in law enforcement, not to act in civil disputes between citizens and businesses. The service has powers to prosecute traders but is under no obligation to do so, even when it is clear the trader has committed a criminal offence.
5. Mr X purchased goods from a company but says the company’s advertising was misleading. He says the company purported to be an authorised seller for the goods, which it is not, and that it failed to provide details of its legal identity.
6. Mr X took legal action in respect of his purchase but his first action failed. He says this was because he lodged his claim against the wrong company and that this was due to false information the company provided about its identity. He says this caused him financial loss.
7. The Council confirms it has provided advice to the company regarding its advertising but Mr X says it continues to breach the Regulations. The Council accepts there remains “low level non-compliance” and has contacted the company but does not appear interested in taking the matter further. Mr X believes the Council should take further action.
8. While Mr X is clearly concerned about the company’s practises the Council’s decision not to take further action does not cause him significant personal injustice. The injustice he describes is the result of the company’s actions rather than the Council’s decision not to take further action against it. It was only after Mr X’s unsuccessful claim that he raised the matter with the Council and he should now have sufficient information to make a new claim, should he wish to do so. Mr X’s remedy lies against the company rather than the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions do not cause Mr X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman