Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Alternative Dispute Resolution. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the dispute and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not consider his report to trading standards in a timely or professional manner. He said he found the matter distressing and it had a negative impact on his health and finances. He would like the ombudsman to overturn trading standards findings, and for the Council to provide him with compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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. Mr X contacted the Council in early 2024 about a dispute he had with a trader.
7. After an initial delay, the Council started an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process with Mr X and the trader. The Council said both Mr X and the trader agreed to the mediation and adjudication process of the ADR before it started.
8. The ADR finished in 2024 with an adjudication.
9. In its complaint response, the Council said the mediating officer had written to Mr X to apologise for the delay in initiating the ADR process. This apology is appropriate and remedies any injustice caused to Mr X for the delay. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. Mr X said the Council did not require the trader to complete its internal complaints process before it started the ADR. In its complaint response, the Council said both Mr X and the trader were aware of the ADR process and agreed to commence mediation regardless of whether the trader’s complaint process had concluded. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s adjudication following the ADR and wanted the findings overturned. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue and the information it took account of when deciding its adjudication. There is not fault in how it took the decision and therefore I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
13. Mr X’s dispute about financial loss is a civil matter between him and the trader. It is open to Mr X to make a claim against the trader in the small claims court himself if he considers them responsible for his financial losses.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman