Cornwall Council (24 010 021)
Category : Environment and regulation > Trading standards
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 07 Oct 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns about a local trader. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Miss X significant injustice. The injustice she claims stems from the actions of the trader and we could not hold the Council responsible for them.
The complaint
- The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has not done enough to deal with the actions of a rogue trader. She says the Council was aware of concerns about the trader before she asked him to carry out work for her but did not prosecute him then or in response to her complaint about his actions. She says that as a result she lost money and has had to go to time, effort and expense to pursue the trader to get her money back.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- I appreciate Miss X believes the Council missed an opportunity to stop the trader before she lost money to him but we cannot hold it responsible for her losses; these result from the actions of the trader alone.
- The Council investigated Miss X’s concerns but regardless of the outcome of its investigation it could not get Miss X her money back. Miss X has made a private civil claim against the trader and we would not say the Council must compensate her for the time, trouble and expense of pursuing the matter.
- We are in any event not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
- The Council has explained the reasons it decided not to prosecute the trader and it is not for us to say its decision was wrong. The law places no absolute duty on the Council to investigate or prosecute traders even where their practices are proven to be unlawful and as explained above, prosecution would not have resulted in the recovery of Miss X’s money so could not have provided a remedy for Miss X’s injustice.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Miss X’s injustice stems from the actions of the trader and not the Council’s investigation into their actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman