Summary: Mr X complains about the authority’s decision not to take action against a dealer who sold him a car. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. And the matter has not caused Mr X any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the authority’s Trading Standards department’s decision not to take action against a garage who sold him his car.
2. He also complains the department was difficult to contact and that officer’s lied to him and hampered his efforts to complain.
3. Mr X wants Trading Standards to stop the garage from selling faulty and dangerous cars. And to stop advertising fraudulent positive reviews.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X bought a used car from a dealer. He says, almost immediately, it developed a serious fault with the brakes. And the dealer refused to put it right. The repairs cost Mr X £4000. He reported the matter to Trading Standards via the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
8. Mr X says during his research he found another complaint about the same dealer alleging a car was sold with a faulty fuel line which the dealer refused to repair. He says he reported this to Trading Standards as well.
9. After some time, Mr X tried to contact Trading Standards for an update. He says he found this difficult because he says all contact must be made via the CAB.
10. Eventually he was advised by Trading Standards that although the dealer is known to the department, it will not be taking any action.
11. Mr X also complains trading standards discriminated against him because he does not live in the area.

Assessment

12. All consumer complaints are now dealt with via the Citizens Advice Consumer Service (CACS). This is a national Government-funded service run by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux offering advice and guidance on consumer issues.
13. The Trading Standards integrated operating model says that, while authorities previously used a ‘complaint-led’ approach to enforcement, the National Trading Standards Board supported a move to use intelligence to make a bigger impact on problems identified. The model does say, however, that there will be times when it will be vital to react to individual complaints.
14. The Authority’s website says consumers should contact the Citizens Advice consumer helpline to raise issues. And, in line with its intelligence-led operating model, the Authority will “look to address the issues that cause the highest levels of detriment to consumers and businesses”.
15. The website also says that, when considering whether to take enforcement action, the Authority will look at:
• The money involved and the number of consumers or businesses affected
• The vulnerability of the consumers
• The level of risk to safety, public health and wellbeing; and
• The previous history of the business in question.
16. Trading Standards told Mr X that it targets it’s “resources and investigations towards garages causing the most harm to consumers and currently we have only a modest number of complaints against this garage. We have recently undertaken an exercise to identify problem garages to inform intelligence led enforcement and this garage did not feature as a significant problem trader.”
17. The Authority has also advised Mr X that he has received the same service as any person living in its area and he has not been discriminated against.
18. The Authority has the discretion to take enforcement action against a business if it decides the action is justified. It takes an intelligence-led approach to enforcement, and collates information recorded onto a national database after problems have been identified by consumers (or other businesses).
19. Although the Authority takes this approach, it can still act after receiving individual complaints if it considers such action appropriate and necessary.
20. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to reconsider evidence which an authority has looked at in deciding whether to act in response to a complaint. However, authorities must fully consider complaints, and must explain why they have decided to act – or not to. If this does not happen, then we may find fault with an authority. If fault is identified which raises questions about a decision, then we may recommend the authority reconsiders the decision.
21. I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision not to investigate the dealer. However, Trading Standards has confirmed it was only aware of a modest amount of complaints against the dealer and did not consider it to pose a significant problem. The decision not to investigate is one of merits and I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the authority reached this decision.
22. Mr X also complains about difficulties in contacting the Trading Standards team. As explained in paragraph 12 above, all complaints to Trading Standards are channelled through the CACS.

The authority’s website advised customers not to call Trading Standards direct, rather to contact the CACS. However, it does provide an email address for duty officer and a postal address.

23. The CACS website says:

“Trading Standards will decide whether to investigate your problem. If they do, they might contact you for more information and evidence. Depending on what they find out, they might take action to stop the trader from acting unfairly. For example, they might educate the trader about the law or take legal action against them to stop them from trading completely.”

24. So, while Mr X may have wanted to discuss his concerns about the company directly with Trading Standards, there is no obligation requiring it to agree to his request.
25. Mr X also complains that officers hampered his efforts to complain. In response to my enquiries, the authority confirmed it had only recently placed its complaints procedure on its website. There is no obligation for an authority to place is complaints procedure online. However, the Ombudsman considers this to be good practice. While placing the procedure on its website the authority has taken a step forward. However, I found it difficult to find and suggest it is placed in a more prominent location on its website.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we will find fault in the authority’s decision not to prosecute the car dealer. Also, I understand Mr X may have been frustrated by his contact with the authority. But I do not consider this caused a significant injustice which requires the expense of an Ombudsman investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman