Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to prosecute a trader who sold him an unroadworthy vehicle. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council misunderstood expert evidence he sent to it in connection with an unroadworthy car he had been sold by a trader. He says it based its decision on the low level of previous complaints against the trader and its lack of resources. He says the Council should reassess the evidence with a view to prosecuting the trader.

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

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision not to prosecute a car trader who had sold him an unroadworthy vehicle. He included with his evidence a report from an independent assessor who concluded there was “compelling evidence that the car was sold in an inherently unroadworthy condition”.
6. The Council considered the report but told Mr X it was not minded to investigate the matter formally and consider taking criminal proceedings against the company which supplied the car.
7. In its letter to Mr X the Council explained the rationale for its decision which covered the car’s repair history and the MOT it had at the time of sale and that the report Mr X had provided was for use in civil and not criminal proceedings and was not sufficiently detailed or unequivocal about the condition of the vehicle at the time Mr X bought it. The Council also explained that it receives over a thousand car complaints a year and it cannot investigate every one. It said it will only take court action against those engaged in the most serious and persistent rogue trading causing harm to the collective interests of consumers and that Mr X’s complaint fell below this threshold.
8. Dissatisfied with this decision and the Council’s reasons for it, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

9. It is not our role to question a decision a council has made if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While I understand Mr X is keen for the Council to take criminal proceedings and prosecute the trader, the decision is one for the Council to make.
10. Mr X says he wants justice and for the Council’s Trading Standards team to take action against the trader. However, it is not obliged to do so. It considered Mr X’s case, including the independent expert’s report he provided and it has explained why it will not be taking further action. This is disappointing for Mr X but it is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman