Summary: Mr X says the Council’s trading standards team failed to investigate a report he made about a clinic which provides eye tests and hearing tests in people’s homes. We will not investigate this complaint as we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate a company which provides eye tests and hearing tests in people’s homes.
2. He says the Council is not protecting the public and must be brought to account.
3. Mr X also says pursuing this matter has caused a lot of stress and work and wants compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s responses to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. In December, Mr X contacted the Council about a company which provides eye and hearing tests at home. I will refer to the company as ‘Company A’. He said the person who attended his home to perform a sight test in October, left a used facemask in his wastepaper bin without his knowledge. He says this exposed him to the risk of catching COVID-19.
7. Mr X also complained about the quote he received for the cost of new glasses and said the company are unethical.
8. After a month he chased the Council as he had not received a reply.
9. At the beginning of February, the Council wrote to Mr X. It apologised for the delay in its response.
10. The Officer confirmed it would not be investigating Mr X’s complaints. It acknowledged the quotation from Company A for new glasses was significantly more than the amount Mr X subsequently paid to a high street optician.
11. However:
• Company A’s quote was in line with the prices of other high street opticians
• Company A does not hold a monopoly on home visits or on mailshots to prospective customers
• Company A provides customers with a quote so they may take time or seek other’s opinions on the prospective purchase; and
• Company A gave Mr X a copy of his prescription on the day of the site test and posted another copy shortly afterwards
12. The Council also referred to Mr X’s complaint about the discarded, used facemask. It confirmed Company A advised that it changed its policy, and all personal protective equipment will be removed from customer’s homes after the appointment.

Assessment

13. The law allows councils discretion on trading standards matters about whether and to what extent to investigate a particular complaint. Councils make their decisions in the general interests of the public rather than the interest of an individual complainant.
14. In this case the Council contacted Company A. It confirmed it has changed its procedures and all staff remove their personal protective equipment (PPE) from customer’s homes. The Council is satisfied and has decided not to take further action. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
15. Regarding the quotation Mr X received for a pair of glasses, again the Council decided not to take further action and has explained its reasons for this.
16. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view and is concerned about the risk to the public. And he says this matter has caused him stress, anxiety and loss of sleep. But it remains he did not suffer any ill effects from the used facemask left in his bin. Nor did he purchase any glasses from Company A.
17. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council.
18. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the Council, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
19. We will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• The alleged personal loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
• The complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign. In these cases, their concerns may be better addressed to their local councillor or MP rather than the Ombudsman.
• The complainant is not the person primarily affected and is complaining about a secondary impact on them, rather than acting on behalf of the person directly affected.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. For the reasons given above I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do I consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman