Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Trading standards

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • South Gloucestershire Council (19 013 943)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 19-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the way the Council investigated her company. She says an officer repeatedly contacted her and other family members, and visited their homes, which caused distress. She says the officer posted personal data about her to the wrong address. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council carried out its investigation. However, we find fault in the Council not updating Mrs B and in its responses to her complaints.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (19 007 812)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 01-Jul-2020

    Summary: Mr X says the Council's trading standards team failed to investigate a report he made about an estate agency. There was fault by the Council because it did not inform Mr X directly about its investigation. However, this failing did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further investigation by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (19 009 497)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 07-Apr-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's getting and executing a warrant at her address. She says the Council did not execute the warrant correctly, wrongly took her property, and did not follow its own policies and procedures. She also complains the Council's officers were rude and aggressive. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's actions.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 011 376)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 27-Jan-2020

    Summary: there is no fault by the Council in its consideration of Mr F's concerns about the quality of specialist glass units fitted in his home which is a listed building

  • Plymouth City Council (19 004 257)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 20-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not investigate allegations against his company in a fair and professional manner. There is no fault in the way the Council carried out its investigation and we have closed Mr X's complaint.

  • Warwickshire County Council (19 000 317)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 22-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to his concerns about the work of two builders at his property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters and has completed his investigation.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 008)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 18-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found initial delay with the way the Council investigated Mr D's report about a gas heating company wrongly claiming his boiler needed repairing to the value of £800. The delay of about 7 weeks caused no significant injustice to him. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with his formal complaint. It investigated and responded to his complaint within published time scales.

  • Cheshire East Council (18 010 906)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 11-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to take sufficient action over his Trading Standards complaint. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

  • Essex County Council (18 013 663)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 04-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to communicate properly with Mr X and sent his personal information to someone else. It will apologise to Mr X and pay him £250. The Council did not investigate Mr X's complaint of unfair contacts terms. The Council will now investigate this complaint and pay Mr X £250 for its failure to investigate earlier.

  • West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service (18 010 399)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Authority was not at fault in its decision not to take enforcement action in response to a complaint Dr B made about a business. It properly considered the complaint but decided enforcement action would not be proportionate to the issue raised. As I have found no fault with how the Authority made its decision, I cannot question the decision itself.