Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about trading standards because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to fine his landlord for taking a deposit which was too high, instead issuing a warning notice to them. Mr Y says this has reduced his faith in the Council’s decision making and is looking for his landlord to be fined for their actions.

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 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Following a complaint from Mr Y to its trading standards department, the Council investigated a complaint of Mr Y’s landlord overcharging for a deposit on a rental property. The Council considered its own policy and the evidence Mr Y provided. The Council spoke to the landlord about the issue before issuing a warning letter, explaining the legal contravention to the landlord. It explained in its response to Mr Y that it had taken this approach as it had been a first offence for the landlord but that if the landlord continues not to comply, enforcement action may be taken.
5. On Mr Y’s request, the Council then explained how it had considered and acted within its policy when taking this approach. Mr Y felt this was not the correct action and complained that the Council were treating the matter as a first offence, when he believed the issue had been recurring since 2009. Mr Y said the Council were not following the law in failing to take enforcement action.
6. The Council responded, saying it had considered all of the information provided, the nature of the breach and the circumstances before issuing the formal warning. It said it would not take further action for this breach. Mr Y approached us.
7. Mr Y has said he is seeking and outcome from our investigation that the landlord involved is fined. We do not have the power to take this action. We are only able to make recommendations to bodies within our jurisdiction about actions then may taken to remedy injustice caused by fault. Consequently, as we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking, we will not investigate.
8. Mr Y has also said that his injustice, as a result of the Council’s alleged fault is his loss of faith in the Council’s decision-making. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case, Mr Y has a right to take the substantive matter, of alleged overcharging for deposits by his landlord, to the first-tier tribunal and he can seek to recover any losses he has suffered as a result of the issue there. His remaining injustice is the emotional impact referred to in paragraph XX. While Mr Y may feel strongly, this is not a serious enough loss, harm or distress, which would warrant our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman