Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to properly vet a trader. He says as a result he was defrauded out of £17,000, causing him enormous mental distress. We have found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains through his representative, Mr F, that the Council failed to properly vet a trader. He says this failure enabled the trader to be trading standards approved and recommended by a trade directory. As a result he used the trader but was defrauded out of £17,000, causing him enormous mental distress.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr D and Mr F about the complaint and considered the information Mr F sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
5. Mr D and Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Trading standards

6. Councils operate a trading standards service which has responsibility for advising on consumer law, investigating complaints and prosecuting traders who break the law. Councils do not have to prosecute a trader even when it is clear that a criminal offence has been committed and the trader is likely to be convicted. They can choose to take no action or to give the trader a warning. Their decisions are taken in the general interests of the public rather than in the interests of individual complainants.
7. The Ombudsman cannot generally look into the merits of a complaint against a rogue trader. We can only look into the way a council trading standards department considered a complaint.
8. If a complainant wants to recover money from a rogue trader, they should consider taking them to court. There are civil legal remedies available for seeking redress for poor or inadequate workmanship and overcharging.

Trusted trader schemes

9. From 2015 to 2020 the Council had a partnership agreement with a national trade directory (“the Directory”) to run a trading standards approved trader scheme.
10. Both the Directory and the Council made checks before the trader could be approved by trading standards and added to the Directory as trading standards approved.
11. The Directory would carry out a vetting process on new and existing applicants and request intelligence checks from the Council.
12. The Council would conduct those intelligence checks using a confidential internal procedure. Officers accessed the applicant’s record and reviewed confidential information. If nothing adverse was found, the Council would mark the trader as approved and the Directory would notify the applicant they were able to promote themselves as “Trading Standards Approved”. The checking process included proof of address such as a utility bill and a form of ID such as a passport or driving licence.
13. The scheme applied to traders based within a ten-mile radius of the Council’s area who could evidence that a minimum of 50% of their work was undertaken within the local authority area.
14. If a trader moved away from the Council’s area, the Directory should advise them they could no longer claim to be trading standards approved by the Council, although the trader could remain on the Directory. The Directory would notify the Council of the move.

What happened

15. The Council carried out the confidential background checks described above on a roofing company (Trader X) based in its area in December 2017. Trader X became listed by the Directory as trading standards approved. The checks were done again in February 2019.
16. At some point in autumn 2019 Trader X moved to the area where Mr D lives, which is a different council area. This meant they were still in the Directory but were no longer approved by the Council’s trading standards. Once the Directory was aware Trader X had moved, it had a responsibility to remove any reference to Surrey Trading Standards approval from its website.
17. In November 2019 Mr D contacted the Directory for advice. He says the Directory persuaded him to use Trader X as they were based near his home and had excellent reviews.
18. Trader X made a preliminary inspection and quoted to fix some minor faults. They also requested a £1,000 deposit. After a further inspection, Trader X said major work was needed to prevent severe problems occurring. The new cost of the work was £13,000. Mr D says he had reservations and felt physically intimidated but he trusted them because they were listed by the Directory. Trader X completed the work. Mr D paid and says under further pressure and intimidation he also agreed to lend them £3,000.
19. Mr D then had serious misgivings about the cost and the quality of the work and a local reputable builder confirmed that the cost was too high and the workmanship was extremely poor. In addition, the invoice was amateurish and made no reference to the company's trading address or VAT registration number. Mr D is certain he was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by a rogue trader. He started legal action against Trader X but this revealed they had given a false address. Mr D says the experience was extremely distressing, caused him to have a breakdown and affected his physical health.
20. Mr D complained to the Directory in March 2020; it gave him the address it had for Trader X.
21. In May 2020 the Directory informed the Council that Trader X had moved out of its area.
22. Mr F complained to the Council in September 2020 on behalf of Mr D. He said it should be prosecuting Trader X as a rogue trader.
23. The Council responded on 30 September. It explained the checking process it followed and said these checks had been carried out on Trader X by appropriately qualified and competent officers and no concerns had been found. The Council could not share the details of the checks with Mr D as there was no legal provision to supply this information to third parties. The Council could not assist Mr D with any civil law claims against Trader X.
24. Mr D remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate his complaint. The Council sent its final response on 16 October 2020. It did not uphold his complaint. Mr D came to the Ombudsman in April 2021.

My findings

25. The Ombudsman has no remit to investigate the actions of the Directory. I have considered the actions of the Council.
26. The Council has sent me evidence of the checks it made on Trader X in December 2017 and February 2019, when it was based in the Council’s area. These show that the Council reviewed confidential data about Trader X as set out in its process and found no cause for concern. There was therefore no fault by the Council.
27. In response to my draft decision, Mr F said the Council’s checks were inadequate and referred to the type of checks done by another council’s trading standards department. This is not evidence of fault by the Council. It is not required to follow another council’s procedures and I have seen evidence that the Council has carried out the checks in line with its own policy.
28. When Surrey County Council carried out its checks, Trader X had a different address in its area. Trader X later gave Mr D a false address in a different council area. This is not evidence that the Council failed to properly check the address.
29. Mr D asked the Council to prosecute Trader X. As paragraph 6 explains, councils do not have to prosecute but in addition the events had happened in a different council area, so it was not the Council’s responsibility to prosecute in any case.
30. This has clearly been a distressing situation for Mr D. I understand he does not wish to take legal action against Trader X due to the difficulty and further distress this would cause him, but this is the only course of action open to him if he wishes to pursue his claim.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman