Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to look into allegations of malpractice by two firms of solicitors and an insurance company. This is because the complaint has been made late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained the Council’s Trading Standards service had unreasonably refused to investigate and take enforcement action in response to her allegations that two firms of solicitors and an insurance company had acted fraudulently and mishandled matters in her case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular the Act says 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 an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms B provided with her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B complained to Trading Standards about two firms of solicitors in its area which had dealt with property and other legal issues in her case in the past.
5. In particular Ms B accused both solicitors of being party to mortgage fraud. She also said one of the firms had failed to enforce an injunction she had obtained against her ex-partner.
6. Ms B wanted Trading Standards to investigate in order that she could recover the fees she paid to the solicitors and obtain compensation.
7. Ms B also wanted Trading Standards to investigate her allegations of malpractice by an insurance company based in its area. She said the company had unreasonably refused to pay out on an insurance policy she held with it.
8. In response to Ms B’s complaint the Council said it could not help with the issues she had raised, and it advised her about other bodies which may be better placed to assist her.
9. The Council also noted that Ms B had approached it previously about these matters and it had provided similar advice at that time.

Back to top

Analysis

10. I do not see we should start an investigation of Ms B’s complaint.
11. In particular I note that the actions of the solicitors and insurance company that Ms B complains about all took place before 2007, and most of the events she refers to happened between 1998 and 2000.
12. In the circumstances, it is clear that Ms B has made her complaint to us well over 12 months after becoming aware of the issues in her case. As a result I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction to investigate, which I refer to in paragraph 2, applies to her complaint.
13. In addition it is evident that Ms B had previously raised her concerns about the solicitors and insurance company with the Council in the past. Therefore it also seems she has been aware of the Council’s refusal to pursue these matters for well over a year.
14. Ms B has not explained why she has made her complaint to us so long after the alleged events took place. In addition I consider it highly unlikely we could carry out a fair or meaningful investigation now regarding what happened around 20 years ago.
15. As a result, I am also not persuaded that we have good reason to exercise our discretion not to apply the time restriction in Ms B’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation of Ms B’s complaint that the Council had unreasonably refused to pursue her allegations about improper practices by two firms of solicitors and an insurance company in its area. This is because Ms B has complained late about these matters, and there is no good reason for us to exercise discretion and pursue her case now.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman