Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a complaint he made to its Trading Standards Service. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council was at fault in the way it responded to his report of an unsafe product and the way it addressed his complaint about this matter. He says the testing carried out on the product was inadequate and the Council has ignored his appeal for retesting. He says the Council’s delay and failings have led to financial loss for him and others.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he provided, including the Council’s final response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X reported safety concerns he had about a product he had used to the Council.
7. The Council investigated the complaint about the product and after commissioning independent testing, its final risk assessment concluded there were no intolerable risks with the product.
8. During the course of the Council’s investigation into product safety, Mr X also made a service complaint about the treatment he received by the Trading Standards service dealing with the product complaint.
9. The final stage of the Council’s response to both complaints was a detailed report which covered Mr X’s claims that the Council’s investigation into the product had been delayed (including the decision to commission independent testing); that the lead officer did not receive appropriate support or have access to appropriate expertise; that Mr X had received poor treatment and had not been taken seriously and that the testing on the product had not sought to determine whether it met the relevant product Standard.
10. The Council confirmed to Mr X that it had sought to determine if the product met the Standard. It did not uphold the first two parts of his complaint about the way it had carried out its investigation. However, it did acknowledge and apologise for a comment made to him by an officer which questioned his integrity. It set out what action it would be taking in liaising and monitoring the voluntary corrective action to be undertaken by the product manufacturer. It also advised that it would be carrying out a service review, concentrating on how to work with complainants of complex matters and managing early expectations around disclosure of information and timescales.
11. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us saying the Council had ignored his appeal for the retesting of the product.

Assessment

12. While I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the extent of the testing which was undertaken, it is not our role to review the merits of professional judgements made by officers. In this case the Council’s product safety specialist carried out the product investigation, arranging independent testing and seeking the views of a product safety specialist from another council and from the Office of Product Safety Standards. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to add to that already undertaken by the Council.
13. The Council has already acknowledged and apologised for failings in how it dealt with Mr X and an investigation into these matters would provide no further useful outcome.
14. Throughout Mr X’s involvement with the Council over this matter he has sought to obtain information about its investigation into the product. However, he has been advised that some information is confidential and due to date protection legislation cannot be released to him. If Mr X wishes to challenge the Council’s decisions on this, he can contact the Information Commissioner which is the body best placed to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman