Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into a rogue builder. This is because Mr X’s injustice stems from the actions of the builder and we cannot hold the Council responsible for this. The Council accepts procedural fault in relation to record-keeping and its communication with Mr X but it has provided a suitable remedy for this. Further investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s investigation into a rogue builder by its Trading Standards team. He says his house is now worthless and has been left as a building site, with part of the property open to the elements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council decided not to take Mr X’s complaint about the builder further in 2018; Mr X complained to us about the issue in September 2022. His complaint about the decision is therefore late.
7. Mr X also complains about the Council’s actions between 2018 and 2021 but we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for him by investigating this further.
8. I appreciate Mr X has suffered significant losses as a result of the substandard work carried out by his builder but we cannot hold the Council responsible for this. Its role is to investigate unfair business practices and its powers are punitive; it could not force the builder to provide compensation for Mr X’s losses. This is a matter for the courts and Mr X confirms he has made a claim against the builder, which unfortunately was unsuccessful.
9. It is now too late for the Council to take action under the relevant legislation and we could not say it must prosecute the builder in any event. Mr X is clearly unhappy with the builder but his sense of outrage at the Council’s refusal to prosecute is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
10. The Council has acknowledged fault in the way it handled the matter but this relates to procedural issues rather than anything which alters the outcome for Mr X. It has apologised and offered Mr X £500 and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for him.
11. Ultimately Mr X’s losses result from the actions of the builder, rather than the Council, and we could not achieve anything worthwhile for Mr X by investigating his complaint about the Council further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s injustice stems from the actions of the builder, rather than the Council, and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for him by investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman