We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided not to prosecute a builder. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the complaint. And the claimed injustice is the fault of the builder, not the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I shall call Mr and Ms X, say the Council failed to consider all the evidence before deciding not to prosecute a builder who carried out work on their home.
2. They say their experience with the builder has made them ill, has affected their children, damaged their property, and took all their savings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. Mr & Ms X employed a builder to carry out work at their home.
8. Via their MP, they complained to the Council about problems they were having with the builder and the work he was doing. The Council advised the dispute was a civil one between the builder and Mr and Ms X and it was not one the Council would become involved in. The MP then asked the Council if its Trading Standards Team would look at the case.
9. The Council confirmed it had investigated the builder for possible offences under consumer protection laws. It asked Mr & Ms X to provide an expert report on the work carried out. Following receipt of the report the Council interviewed the builder in the presence of his solicitor.
10. The Council decided it could not prove an offence had been committed and it would not therefore prosecute the builder.
11. Mr & Ms X complained to us. Following an assessment, we issued a decision stating we would not investigate their complaint because the Council considered the evidence it had at the time when deciding not to prosecute the builder.
12. Mr & Ms X complained to us again, this time stating the Council has failed to consider the new evidence they have provided.
13. The council has confirmed it has reviewed all the information provided by Mr & Ms X. It advised that if they had evidence of criminal offences such as money laundering, such allegations should be reported to the Police. Having completed its review, the Council reconfirmed its decision not to prosecute the builder.
14. Mr & Ms X disagree with the Council’s decision. However, the decision not to take any action against the builders is one of merits and I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council reached these decisions.
15. Also, while Mr & Ms X are clearly concerned about the builder’s practices, the Council’s decision not to prosecute does not cause them significant personal injustice. The injustice they describe is the result of the builder’s actions rather than the Council’s decision not to prosecute.
16. It is for Mr & Ms X to take legal action against the builder for the claimed financial loss and injustice, rather than the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr & Ms X’s complaint because it does not meet the test set out in our Assessment Code. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered their complaint. And the claimed injustice is the fault of the builder, not the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman