Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s case considered under its Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to the outcome Ms X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her case under its Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme whereby she sought redress for poor work carried out by a trader at her home. She says the 50% award following consideration of her case was an arbitrary figure and that the Council should review its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council runs an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) scheme which considered Ms X’s case against a trader who had carried out poor work at her property.
7. An initial procedural error whereby the original ADR official had wrongly stated the case could not be adjudicated because Ms X had not submitted evidence from a third party was acknowledged and addressed by the Council.
8. It allowed her the opportunity to submit additional evidence which was then considered in the determination of her case. The decision made was that Ms X be awarded 50% of the amount she had paid for the work.
9. Ms X complained to the Council about the decision and the handling of her case. The Council accepted there had been fault at the outset in the handling of her case but that she had been allowed to submit additional evidence. However, it explained that, in accordance with the rules of the scheme, there was no appeal against the decision on the amount of her award and that if she wanted to, she could pursue legal action against the trader through the courts.
10. The Council agreed with Ms X that there had been a procedural error in the request for third party evidence. However, it addressed this by allowing her to submit further evidence before her case was reviewed and decided. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not add significantly to the Council’s own investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot question decisions made by officers using their professional judgement. While it is clear Ms X disagrees with the decision that she is entitled to 50% of the amount she paid, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a recommendation that this amount be increased. If Ms X wants to seek further redress against the trader, she can take action through the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to the outcome Ms X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman