Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s Trading Standards department failed to act on his concerns about a trader. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice, or that we could achieve anything for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s Trading Standards department failed to act on his reported concerns about a trader based in its area. He says that had the Council acted sooner he may not have been threatened by the trader in relation to payment of their invoice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X contacted a trader who put a leaflet put through his door to enquire about the cost of replacing his fence. He had several issues with the trader, who sent him an invoice for £800 which Mr X refused to pay. This resulted in threatening messages and intimidating behaviour by the trader.
5. Mr X reported the trader to Worcestershire County Council, where the trader is based, but the Council declined to deal with the matter. It explained Mr X’s concerns were a private civil matter for the parties to work out among themselves. It also told Mr X that it was for the Trading Standards department in the area where the work was carried out to decide whether there was any basis for prosecution. As the work had not been carried out in Worcestershire the Council could not become involved.
6. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s response. He accepts Trading Standards does not become involved in individual disputes but believes there is a wider issue with the trader. He says that if the Council had dealt with his concerns at an earlier stage the trader may not have become threatening and intimidatory. He says he suffered weeks of distress as a result of the Council’s failure to act.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is not for the Council’s Trading Standards department act in individual disputes between traders and customers. While Mr X believes there is a wider issue the Council failed to address Trading Standards takes an intelligence-based approach and the Council confirms it has no ongoing investigation into the trader’s actions in its area which would have warranted further action. This is a decision it is entitled to make. It has also explained the issues around its jurisdiction for actions carried out outside the County.
8. To say the Council’s intervention in this matter, whether within its remit or not, would have changed events between Mr X and the trader is pure speculation. The contact between Mr X and the trader involved negotiation over the amount Mr X was willing to pay for their work and it was not for the Council to become involved with this. Even if it could have approached the trader its focus would have been on determining whether any criminal offences had been committed rather than resolving the dispute with Mr X. It is therefore unlikely we could say that what happened between Mr X and the trader could have been avoided or that the Council’s actions caused him injustice. And in this situation it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X by investigating his complaint further.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X injustice, or that we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman