Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to prosecute a trader he paid more than £3,000 to. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mr X claims stems from the actions of the trader and not the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns about a rogue trader under its Trading Standards function. He says he has lost more than £3,000 and is concerned the trader has taken money from other members of the public across the country.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has reported his concerns about the trader to both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council), as the authority where the trader is based, and to the London Borough of Ealing (LBE) as his home authority and the authority for the area where the alleged offence took place. Neither authority has decided to progress the case, although both agree it is a matter for LBE.
5. Mr X has complained about the Council because he believes it should do more. He says LBE referred him back to the Council but this is not supported by the evidence he has provided. LBE has accepted it would be the authority to investigate the issue but it has explained why it will not do so in this case.
6. The Council has explained it would not be appropriate to investigate a complaint about an issue which took place in Ealing and that after consultation with the police it does not consider there would be a reasonable prospect of success, even if it did decide to prosecute. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s approach to the issue.
7. Further, Mr X’s main injustice lies in the loss of his money and it is not the Council’s role to get this back for him. If Mr X wishes to pursue the return of his money he may want to take legal advice about making a claim against the trader. But the Council’s decision not to prosecute the trader does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman