Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Trading Standards Team because further investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Trading Standards Team acted unlawfully and unfairly during a tobacco test purchase at a shop where he was the leaseholder. He says officers gave conflicting accounts of the test purchase, failed to notify him, wrongly seized and retained the shop keys. Mr X wants the Council to accept he was not liable, as he had no dealings in the day-to-day running of the business, apologise, pay a significant sum in compensation, and review its procedures.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In July 2025, the Council carried out a tobacco test purchase at a shop where Mr X was the leaseholder. Officers closed the shop and seized the keys. Mr X says the Council did not inform him and kept the keys for 13 days, preventing the shop from opening.
9. The Council says officers lawfully seized and retained the keys to prevent further criminal activity. It says the landlord was contacted and informed. Mr X says officers gave conflicting explanations about the test purchase and failed to provide paperwork or evidence. He believes the closure and seizure of the keys was unlawful. He also says the Council wrongly treated him as responsible; despite knowing he did not run the business. It explained to Mr X that officers carried out a lawful test purchase and left valid notices at the premises.
10. The Council has told Mr X it has shared as much information as the law allows. We will not investigate this issue further as it would be reasonable for Mr X to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
11. We cannot consider concerns about enforcement action taken as part of a criminal investigation, as this falls outside our remit. We can only consider the Council’s administrative actions.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. We are not an appeal body and cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision, where there is no fault in the Council’s decision making or administrative processes.
13. Mr X has told us he wants the Council to pay him significant compensation (£15,000) for the distress, anxiety and prolonged harm he believes its actions have caused. Deciding on whether an organisation has been negligent or acted unlawfully involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way, at evidence as only the court can to make a finding. Only this route can decide if the Council has been negligent and that damages are payable. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation. We have no powers to enforce an award for damages and would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. That is why we will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Trading Standards team, because further investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman