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 complaint about trading standards. Mr Y says this has meant he is unable to shop in a local market with his assistance dog and has to buy items at more expensive shops.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council after he was refused entry to a market by a trader because he had an assistance dog and asked the Council’s trading standards service to investigate. The Council said it would not investigate, and Mr Y complained.
7. The Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint, explaining that the legislation Mr Y had hoped to rely on would not cover his circumstances and it was unable to take enforcement action in cases of discrimination. It confirmed that it was not the correct body to enforce the Equality Act in cases where a person feels they have been discriminated against by a business as part of its final response to Mr Y’s complaint.
8. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case, the Council has considered the situation, its role and its powers and the points Mr Y has raised within his complaint about the trader. After consideration of its powers to enforce particular legislation, it has concluded that it is not able to take enforcement action in Mr Y’s circumstances as it does not have the power to act.
9. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decision, as the Council has properly considered the complaint before forming its decision, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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