Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to discontinue an investigation into a trader whom he says is fraudulent and criminal. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prosecute a rogue trader whom he says is fraudulent and from whom it has a duty to protect the public. He says he has lost £7,000 and been caused anxiety and cost having to pursue a civil action against the trader.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, 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

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says a trader who he employed to carry out domestic improvements carried out unsatisfactory work and took a deposit of £7,000 from him. He complained about the trader to the trading standards authority and provided photographic and other evidence of the defective work.
5. Mr X says he was obliged to take a civil action against the trader to recover his losses but the believes the Council should have prosecuted the trader to prevent him carrying out similar fraudulent actions against other members of the public.
6. The Council initiated an investigation but decided there was insufficient evidence to obtain a prosecution. It used its discretion to discontinue the investigation and advised Mr X to continue with his civil action which requires a lower standard of evidence than a criminal one.
7. Analysis
8. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council did not believe the evidence met the standards sufficient to secure a criminal prosecution.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman