Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about an electricity meter. This is because there is not enough of evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains about the Trading Standards Department’s failure to investigate his concerns that his electricity meter is not compliant with current regulatory standards.

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 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))
3. 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

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. The Council’s Trading Standards department says on its website ‘enforcement action ….will be more ….likely where…the alleged offence creates a risk to public safety’.
7. Mr X outlines in detail how he considers the electricity meter in his supported housing accommodation breaches current legal standards. He says this may result in him incurring unfair charges.
8. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. It found no fault with how a Trading Standards Officer responded to his concerns. Overall, the Council concluded:

• the Trading Standards Officer had carried out ‘due diligence’ by making enquiries to the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) plus Ofgem;
• the ‘sub meter’ in Mr X’s home did not require certification, was lawful and safe to use;
• its enquiries with Mr X’s landlord did not show any concerns such as the meter not being fitted properly;
• Mr X’s property had undergone regular electrical checks;
• there was no evidence of lack of transparency in the management of the billing;
• the landlord had written to all tenants to confirm all the meters in Mr X’s building were due to be replaced

9. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
10. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has addressed Mr X’s concerns reasonably when deciding not to take any further action. I have seen information showing Trading Standards Officers considered Mr X’s concerns, the evidence available and explained why no further action would be taken.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide further consideration was not necessary. As the Council has considered Mr X’s concerns reasonably, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman