Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint against a plumber she used to carry out work in her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome and Ms B can pursue a claim against the plumber through the courts if she seeks further recompense to the £100 compensation he has already paid.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council did not properly consider matters when its Trading Standards department decided a £100 goodwill payment from a plumber she had used was a satisfactory way of resolving her dispute about unsatisfactory work he had done at her home. Ms B says the plumber should also refund the £150 she paid for installation works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B used a plumber to carry out work in her home which was not properly completed by him and she used an alternative trader to make good the work of the original plumber.
6. After the work had been completed, Ms B contacted the Council about the original plumber’s unsatisfactory work. It arranged mediation between Ms B and the plumber as a result of which the parties involved agreed the plumber would make a goodwill payment of £100 to Ms B as full and final settlement. Part of the Council’s reasoning in accepting this as an appropriate resolution to the dispute was its view that Ms B had not given the plumber sufficient opportunity to make good the work before employing another trader.
7. After accepting the £100 payment Ms B complained to the Council about its handling of matters and its view that she should have given the plumber a further opportunity to make good the work. The Council responded by explaining it viewed matters in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which does not include a right for the consumer to use another trader to complete the work and charge it to the original trader. It said in most circumstances it is of the view that it is generally reasonable to allow the original trader to repeat or fix the service and that this had been its view in Ms B’s case.
8. It further explained that the £100 offer from the trader appeared to be a reasonable gesture given that it thought it unlikely Ms B would be able to persuade a court to find for her should she take the plumber to court.

Assessment

9. While I understand Ms B disagrees with the approach taken by the Council in connection with her case, and that she feels she gave the plumber sufficient opportunity to resolve matters, we cannot review the merits of the Council’s decision.
10. Ms B and the plumber agreed to mediation and Ms B accepted the goodwill gesture recorded as being in full and final settlement. If she now wishes to pursue the plumber for further monies it is open to her to take action against him through the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome and Ms B can pursue a claim against the plumber through the courts if she seeks further recompense to the £100 compensation he has already paid.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman