Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about trading standards because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly refused to investigate his trading standards complaint and gave conflicting advice during the process. He is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint.
2. Mr Y says he has lost trust in the Council and feels his time has been wasted, causing him upset and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case, the Council considered the information Mr Y provided, its own annual priorities and its remit. It also considered relevant information such as the disclaimer provided to users of the service Mr Y complained about. It decided not to investigate Mr Y’s trading standards complaint any further. It was able to explain its rationale to Mr Y for its decision.
10. As the Council considered relevant evidence and its own policies, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the Council providing him with incorrect information and its lack of response to some of his emails. The Council considered this within its complaints process. It apologised to Mr Y for the misinformation, agreed to remind its staff of the correct procedure for complaints of the same nature as Mr Y’s and to respond to emails.
12. This is a proportionate remedy to any injustice caused to Mr Y and we would not consider any further remedy needed. As we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council, we will not investigate this complaint further.
13. As we are not investigating the substantive part of Mr Y’s complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman