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:

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 009 471)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it decided to allow a trader to remain on its approved traders scheme.

  • Leeds City Council (21 015 886)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 03-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs X says the Council's delay in investigating her complaint led to a company going into liquidation. This means she cannot get her money back. The Council is at fault because of the delays in its response. However, this failing did not cause Mrs X significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

  • Surrey County Council (20 014 241)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 12-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to properly vet a trader. He says as a result he was defrauded out of £17,000, causing him enormous mental distress. We have found no fault.

  • Leicestershire County Council (20 011 868)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for failures its trading standards department made after he complained about a rogue builder. He says these faults caused him and his wife injustice because, as a result, another council was unable to prosecute the builder. The Council was at fault for failures in communication but these did not mean the other council could not prosecute. It decided, independently, that prosecution was not justified. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr and Mrs C £100.

  • Rutland County Council (20 011 867)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 17-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for various failures related to his complaint about a rogue builder. Mr C says he and his wife have suffered injustice because of their distress and the amount of time Mr C spent investigating the builder. The Council was at fault for a failure to respond to an email and a telephone call. It has already changed its processes to prevent a recurrence. It has agreed to pay Mr C £100 in recognition of his and Mrs C's distress and the time and trouble he was put to.

  • 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.