Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Trading Standards matter. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council took too long to investigate his complaint about a local builder, failed to investigate properly and did not keep proper records. He says this caused him stress. He is also unhappy the Council suggested he take private civil action against the builder for breach of contract as this made him feel responsible for what happened.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Local authorities have powers to investigate the actions of rogue traders under their Trading Standards function. They can take businesses to court or stop them operating but they cannot provide remedies for individuals who have lost out financially.
5. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s investigation into a builder he says stole his money. He says the Council took years to investigate the allegation but did not interview other witnesses and failed to properly format witness statements. He is also unhappy with its decision not to prosecute the builder.
6. Mr X has previously complained about delay by the Council’s Trading Standards department and I have therefore limited my consideration of this complaint to the new issues and periods of time since his last complaint.
7. I understand Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s investigation but neither the alleged delay nor the decision not to prosecute the builder caused him significant injustice.
8. Mr X’s injustice lies in the fact he paid the builder for a service they did not provide in accordance with the agreed terms of their contract and the Council has correctly explained that Mr X would need to take his own private civil action to pursue a remedy for this. The Council’s decision not to prosecute the builder does not affect Mr X as it could never have resulted in the return of his money or the provision of the service.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman