Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take legal action against a contractor who carried out work on the complainant’s home. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause the injustice claimed by the complainant. Their injustice stems from the actions of the contractor and the Council is not responsible for this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Trading Standards department has not stopped a rogue trader from conducting business despite several complaints.
2. He says he is mentally and physically exhausted as the work to his property should have been finished around September 2023 but is just finishing now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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. I understand Mr X believes the Council should take action against the contractor to make them accountable for their actions.
7. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns, including:
• A visit to Mr X at home
• A review of the complaints received
• A check of credit licence arrangements
• Confirmation the contractor was a member of the Federation of Master Builders
• A review of Companies House information; and
• A check with HMRC and the Insolvency Service.

It decided it could not take legal action against the contractor and explained its reasons to Mr X.

8. 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.
9. The Council has explained the reasons it decided not to take legal action against the contractor. 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 .
10. Also, the injustice claimed by Mr X results from the actions of the contractor, not the Council. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the contractor.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s report about the contactor who worked on his home.
• The Council’s decision not to take legal action against the contractor does not cause Mr X any personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman