Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prosecute a builder who carried out damp proofing and kitchen work in 2013/14. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the failure of the Council’s Trading Standards authority to prosecute a builder whom he says carried out unsatisfactory work in in his home in 2013 and 2014.

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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council in 2019 about defective work which a builder carried out in 2013 and 2014. He says the damp proof course installed in 2013 failed and a kitchen which was fitted the following year suffered from the dampness and installation defects.
5. The Council’s Trading Standards unit referred Mr X to the National Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline to assist him in pursuing a private action against the builder in the small claims court. It explained to him that its role was to carry out criminal prosecutions against traders and that complaints about defective work fell outside the field of deception and misrepresentation and criminal acts. Even had it fallen into this category the statutory timescale for criminal prosecution of three years had already elapsed.
6. The Council explained to Mr X its role in Trading Standards matters. He does not accept the Council’s role or that he would need to seek a remedy in the courts for his losses. The Council’s advice is similar to that given by the Ombudsman in information sheets about this subject.
7. 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. In this case the Council gave Mr X the same advice as any other authority in these circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman