Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint on how the Council’s trading standards officers dealt with her concerns about a product she believes led to the death of two of her pets. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X used an animal treatment product on her pets and two of them died. She sought action from the Council against the firm which made the product. Miss X complains the Council has:
1. failed to properly investigate her complaint;
2. not found the firm to blame;
3. not treated her concerns as important.
2. Miss X wants justice for her pets and says she needs to get legal action against the company.

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; 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

5. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Miss X’s concerns, a Council officer discussed the matter with her to gather information, which she provided. No post-mortem evidence for the pets was available. Officers contacted the manufacturer and reviewed information about the product’s use and other reports of it causing harm. They determined the available evidence did not allow them to make a case that the use of the product was the cause of Miss X’s pets dying, or that there was sufficient additional evidence about the product to support an investigation.
8. The Council gathered relevant information about the matter to make their decision on whether to pursue a case against the company. The officers are required to enforce laws so the standard of proof required for them to proceed with a case and win at court would be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. They considered the available evidence against the relevant laws and applied their professional judgement and decided not to pursue the matter. That was a decision they were entitled to take. The evidence is that the Council took Miss X’s complaint seriously and properly considered the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. We note the complaint outcome Miss X wants is for legal action to be taken against the company, to get justice for her pets. We cannot order councils to take legal action. That we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman