Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s lack of assistance in pursuing a case against a workman who carried out poor quality work for her. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council and its Trading Standards Department have closed ranks in deciding that it will not prosecute a workman used by Ms X for work at her property because there is “no actionable cause”. Ms X says she has been badly affected by the stress and the Council’s lack of support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X employed a workman to undertake work at her property. A few months after the work had been completed Ms X found he had not done the work to the required standard. She says he also charged for materials which were not used.
6. Ms X contacted the workman about his sub-standard work but ended up paying others to rectify work he had not done properly.
7. Ms X complained to the Council’s Trading Standards Department about the workman and provided photographic evidence that he had not used materials he had charged for. The Department told Ms X that there was “no actionable cause” to pursue a criminal case.
8. Unhappy with the response and because it had not been made clear to her why no criminal case could be pursued, Ms X complained to the Council.
9. The Council responded by referring Ms X to its policy used in deciding what action to take in such cases and that the information she had provided had been assessed against this policy. It explained that for criminal cases it would have to prove “beyond all reasonable doubt” that a criminal offence had been committed and that in this case it did not consider a criminal prosecution was the appropriate response because the issues involved highlighted a civil matter between Ms X and the workman based on alleged poor workmanship.
10. It said she had been told that for civil cases the burden of proof is lower, needing only to prove to the court “on the balance of probabilities” that her consumer statutory rights had been infringed. The Council provided information about how she could make her own civil claim against the workman.
11. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

12. Ms X has clearly been greatly affected by these events and sought the support of the Council. However, it assessed her case in accordance with its policy and decided not to pursue a criminal prosecution. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and the merits of it are not open to review by the Ombudsman.
13. The Council has explained its decision to Ms X and advised her that it cannot help her with her contractual dispute or with the civil court process. Instead it provided relevant information should Ms X want to pursue matters further herself.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman