Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Trading Standards actions and decision making because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s Trading Standard’s investigation and its decision not to act in relation to a faulty product. She is also unhappy with its complaint handling. Ms X says she has suffered distress, frustration and exhaustion as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X contacted the Council because a product caused harm to her daughter, Miss Y.
8. The Council investigated and concluded the product could not be shown to be unsafe and so it took no further action.
9. In its final complaint response the Council gave reasons for this decision. It explained:
• It had seen no evidence of similar complaints that supported an allegation the product itself was unsafe.
• There were too many variables to link the harm experienced by Ms X’s daughter directly to the safety of the product, as opposed to incorrect usage or other factors.
• It considered testing the product but found this would be too expensive and ultimately inconclusive and so it decided not to pursue this.
• The British Standards Institution tests the product to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
• It considered current warnings suitable.
10. The Council considered the information available and gave reasons for its decision. That Ms X disagrees with its conclusions is not evidence of fault.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation. Further, any decision by the Council to take no further action against the supplier does not directly cause any significant injustice to Ms X or Miss Y.
12. Ms X says the Council’s investigation took more than 18 months and required a lot of input and effort from her causing distress, frustration and exhaustion.
13. Any matters arising more than 12 months before Ms X complained to us are late with no good reason to exercise discretion. However, due to ongoing injustice, matters within the last 12 months are in time. That said, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
14. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman