Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s trading standards decision not to take specific further action. It is unlikely we would find its actions have caused Mr X a significant injustice. And it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about a Freedom of Information request.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council’s trading standards team are not fit for purpose and the Council has refused to comply with his freedom of information (FoI) request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his elderly mother employed a tradesman to carry out work at her home which they are not satisfied with. He says they are involved in Court proceedings with the tradesman. Mr X says he referred the case to the Council’s trading standards team. He is not happy with its decision not to take any specific further action. The Council says it will use the information Mr X has provided if they should get further reports.
7. Mr X does not like the tone of the Council’s communication. He says the service is not fit for purpose. He says he gave the Council details of another unhappy customer.
8. Mr X says he made a FoI request which the Council has not complied with.
9. The Council told Mr X in its reply to his FoI request that he had a right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As explained in paragraph two, we usually consider it reasonable to expect complainants to use the ICO in FoI cases. There are no reasons why this should not apply to this complaint.
10. While I appreciate Mr X was disappointed with the Council’s decision not to take formal action neither the decision nor the Council’s handling of the matter caused him significant personal injustice. The Council could never have provided Mr X with a remedy for their losses. And he is seeking that within court proceedings. Any further action taken against the tradesman would not have prevented any personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to approach the ICO for his FoI complaint. And it is unlikely we would find any significant injustice caused to Mr X from the Council’s handling of the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman