Summary: Ms X complains that the Council, against its own policy, recommended a trader to her vulnerable mother and then failed to take action against him when, in 2016, he overcharged her for poor work. The complaint is late and therefore outside jurisdiction. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate as the Ombudsman would be unlikely to make a finding of significant fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains that the Council breached its own policy by recommending a trader to her mother. She says the trader took advantage of this to pressurise her mother into employing him to undertake additional work which he did badly and for which he overcharged. Ms X says the Council has taken no action against the trader who she says has since carried out a campaign of harassment against her. She says that Council had a duty of care towards her mother because of her vulnerability.

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
• it is unlikely further investigation will 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), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered correspondence between Ms X and the Council.
5. Ms X has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. This decision takes account of her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council participates in the Checkatrade scheme which provides listings for tradesmen who are verified by the Council and customer reviews. Tradesmen pay to be on their list. The Council’s policy is to work through the Checkatrade scheme rather than to operate its own “trusted trader” scheme. Mr Z, the trader about whom Ms X complains, is not listed with Checkatrade.
7. In 2011, Ms X’s mother, Mrs Y, was contacted by the Council requesting her to clear up her front garden. It gave her the contact details of Mr Z, who, it said, it had used previously without any problems to do similar clearance work. The available records do not show whether Mrs Y asked for suggestions.
8. Further problems arose in 2012 and again in 2013 when it seems the Council put Mrs Y in touch with a female gardener – although there are no definite records of this.
9. In 2016, the Council served a notice requiring the front garden to be cleared again. The Council says it mentioned Mr Z’s name again at this point as someone who might be able to help with the clear up, although records show that shortly after it advised Mrs Y that it would be a good idea to obtain more than one quotation.
10. Ms X says that as Mr Z was recommended by the Council, her mother, who is elderly and vulnerable, had faith in him and employed him for some renovations after a fire.
11. Ms X says that the trader’s work was poor; that he overcharged and charged for work he did not carry out; and that he began a campaign of harassment against her.
12. She says that, under its own policy, the Council should not have provided Mr Z’s name in the first place but that, because it did and therefore gave the impression he was a trusted trader, it should take responsibility for his actions. Ms X argues that the Council had a duty of care towards Mrs Y as a vulnerable person.
13. Ms X says that the Council should follow its published procedures and discipline officers that don’t; and should investigate contractors whose behaviour is unacceptable. The Council says that Mr Z’s activities do not fall within the scope of Trading Standards’ activities and any concerns about his work are a civil matter. I understand that Ms X began legal action against Mr Z.

Assessment

14. The Local Government Act 1974 which sets out the Ombudsman’s powers, says that complaints need to be made within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter complained of. In this case, the problems began in 2016 and the complaint is therefore out of jurisdiction (see paragraph 3).
15. Ms X argues that the complaint is not outside jurisdiction on time grounds because she only found some specific information after making a subject access request and because we require complainants to go through the Council’s complaint procedure before we will consider a complaint and the Council delayed in providing its final response. However, the 12 months period specified in the Local Government Act 1974 is intended to run from first knowledge of the events which form the basis of the complaint. From the documents Ms X has supplied, it is clear that she was aware of all the key points of her complaint in early 2017 and therefore the clock, for our purposes, starts then and the complaint is late.
16. The Ombudsman can in some circumstances make an exception to this general rule so I have considered whether this is one of the cases where an exception should be made. I have taken account of Mrs Y’s apparent vulnerability and the fact that her daughter, Ms X, has spent time pursuing the matter through other means. However, I have decided we should not make an exception. First, from the evidence I have seen it is unlikely that sufficient records exist to make a firm and safe finding about what actually happened. Secondly, I think that, even if we did investigate, we would be unlikely to find that the claimed injustice was caused directly as the result of fault by the Council.
17. It seems reasonably clear that when Mr Z’s name was mentioned to Mrs Y in 2011 and 2016 it was in connection only with him helping to clear the garden, the type of work he seems to have done satisfactorily for the Council and which did not in itself cause a problem for Mrs Y.
18. This is a completely different type of work from renovating a property and I don’t think it would be reasonable to assume that mentioning a name in connection with, basically, a labouring job, would be a recommendation about the same person’s suitability to undertake more skilled work. I do not consider that the Ombudsman would hold the Council responsible for any problems with Mr Y’s subsequent behaviour.
19. Similarly, the Council has explained why it would not pursue action against Mr Y and I am doubtful that the Ombudsman would find fault with the Council’s stance. Essentially, there are civil legal remedies available for seeking redress for poor or inadequate workmanship and overcharging. Harassment is a criminal matter and, I believe, Ms X has already involved the Police in this.
20. Whether the Council had a duty of care for Mrs Y such as it should have made extra checks on Mr Z is not something the Ombudsman can rule on. This is a matter which falls more within the remit of the courts.
21. Ms X says that the Council’s policy prevents it from making recommendations about tradesmen. Ms X was not present when the discussions between the Council and Mrs Y took place. They are mentioned in records but not in any great detail. We cannot tell, therefore, the context in which these “recommendations” were made. The information I have seen suggests that a Council officer was trying to be helpful rather than giving an official Council endorsement of a particular tradesman but the events are too long ago for us to make a safe finding on this point.
22. So, even if we made an exception to the general rule about late complaints, investigation would be unlikely to produce a finding of fault and therefore the Ombudsman could not provide a remedy for any problems experienced by Ms X and Mrs Y.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have decided that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman