Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s trading standards team visiting his business. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, no worthwhile outcome achievable, and we cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s trading standards team visited his business. He said the Council did not have proper authority to carry out the visit, intimidated his staff and entered private areas of the premises.
2. Mr X said the visit caused the business to lose over £10,000 in revenue and caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s trading standards team carried out a visit at Mr X’s business. This was alongside other partner agencies. The Ombudsman does not have powers to investigate the actions of the other agencies and therefore I have not considered the actions of those agencies.
7. Mr X complained the Council accessed private areas of the premises, intimidated staff and did not have the proper authority to carry out the visit.
8. In its complaint response, the Council highlighted the legislative powers it used to visit and enter Mr X’s business, and the reasons it believed a visit necessary.
9. I have reviewed the legislation, which sets out the Council’s powers to carry out a visit at business premises. The Council’s reasoning for visiting Mr X’s business appears in line with this legislation. It also does not place any restrictions on which parts of a premises the Council can access.
10. We would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions here, as it appears to have acted in line with legislation.
11. The Council said it reviewed the actions of its officers and did not find any concerns about their conduct.
12. The Ombudsman does not investigate the actions of individual council officers and cannot tell the Council it should take disciplinary actions against its staff. There is therefore no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this part of Mr X’s complaint.
13. Finally, Mr X seeks financial compensation for the loss of earnings suffered by his business. He also seeks assurances the Council will not carry out a repeat visit.
14. We cannot tell a Council to award somebody compensation. In cases where we do investigate, we can only look at the potential of symbolic, restorative payments if we see it necessary. These are to put a person back in the position they would have been if fault had not occurred. We also cannot tell the Council it should not visit Mr X’s business again.
15. We therefore cannot achieve the outcomes sought by Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, no worthwhile outcome achievable and we cannot achieve his desired outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman