Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council Trading Standards officers deciding not to investigate his reports about a firm he says mis-sold three cars to him. Mr X is not caused a significant personal injustice by the Council’s professional judgement decision not to investigate the firm. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate Mr X’s complaint for wider public interest reasons.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Trading Standards officers have declined to investigate a firm which he considers misrepresented three vehicles it sold to him. Mr X says he has lost out on a profit of about £5,000 on one vehicle. Mr X wants the Council to investigate the firm.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents Mr X provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The most significant claimed personal injustice to Mr X here is his loss of profit. That injustice would stem from the actions of the firm. It would not stem from the Council’s decision not to investigate the firm.
6. I recognise the Council’s decision not to investigate is a disappointment to Mr X, because he wants the firm’s practices to be examined. But that is not sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
7. It is for councils to use their professional judgement to decide how they should use their resources. This Council says it has decided to prioritise Trading Standards cases involving public safety and large-scale fraud. Officers have determined the incidents Mr X brought to their attention will be recorded, but they do not justify further action when applying their approach. That is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to make. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to go behind its decision.
8. I have considered whether Mr X’s complaint raises an issue of public interest which would justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman will only normally consider a public interest matter as one part of an investigation into a core complaint issue causing a complainant significant personal injustice. The Ombudsman would only investigate solely on a wider public interest basis in exceptional circumstances, where that public interest impact is extremely serious. I do not consider Mr X’s complaint raises public interest issues to warrant such an exceptional Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the Council’s decision not to investigate the firm does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice;
• there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate Mr X’s complaint in the wider public interest.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman