Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not conduct an investigation into a trader who failed to properly install his boiler. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its decision caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to take action against a rogue trader for failing to properly install his boiler more than five years ago.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council told Mr X it would not conduct a Trading Standards investigation into the man who installed his boiler in 2021. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision but the Council explained the issue was a private civil matter and he would need to make a claim against the trader at court. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision but did not complain to us about it until August 2023. His complaint is therefore late.
6. We do have discretion to investigate late complaints but even if we decided to exercise our discretion we would not investigate the matter further. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision and because the decision did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
7. 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.
8. Mr X’s suggestion that it is the Council’s duty to ensure the trader carries out remedial work to rectify the substandard work is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Trading Standards. The Council was entirely correct to suggest his dispute with the trader was a private civil matter and its decision not to investigate his concerns did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
9. Mr X’s injustice stems from the actions of the man who installed his boiler and his remedy for this issue lies in making a claim against him/his company. The Council’s Trading Standards department is not responsible for resolving the issue and even if we were to recommend it investigates the trader further this would not provide a remedy for the injustice he claims.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its decision caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman