Trading standards


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Essex County Council (18 013 663)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 04-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to communicate properly with Mr X and sent his personal information to someone else. It will apologise to Mr X and pay him £250. The Council did not investigate Mr X's complaint of unfair contacts terms. The Council will now investigate this complaint and pay Mr X £250 for its failure to investigate earlier.

  • West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service (18 010 399)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 09-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Authority was not at fault in its decision not to take enforcement action in response to a complaint Dr B made about a business. It properly considered the complaint but decided enforcement action would not be proportionate to the issue raised. As I have found no fault with how the Authority made its decision, I cannot question the decision itself.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (17 018 185)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 28-Jun-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council's trading standards department did not investigate his complaint about defective gas works and did not publish his negative feedback about a trader on its Trader Register. The Council is not at fault. It made enquiries and considered whether the feedback should be published.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (16 016 886)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 09-May-2018

    Summary: Ms T complains about the way the Council's trading standards team dealt with her complaint about a builder who carried out poor quality work at her property and owed her money. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way trading standards handled the matter.

  • Salford City Council (16 019 434)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 17-Jan-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found some fault by the Council on Mr D's complaint that it failed to take appropriate enforcement action and protect the public from a local electronics repair firm after receiving reports about poor service. While the Council received and considered hundreds of reports about this firm, the evidence does not show what happened with its investigation during a period of 12 months from April 2016. The delay caused no significant injustice to Mr D.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (17 000 056)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 24-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for refusing to investigate Mr B's trading standards complaint about a double glazing company. Neither Mr B nor the company are located within the Council area. However, the Council was at fault for delays in responding to Mr B's queries, and for not responding to a complaint about the delays. It has now responded to Mr B and has apologised, so his injustice has been remedied.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (16 015 966)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 14-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in the conduct of mediation carried out by trading standards officers. That led a suspicion of bias and a loss of confidence in the process. There was also fault in record keeping and the provision of information, but that did not lead to significant injustice requiring remedy.

  • Northumberland Council (16 006 707)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: The complainant, Mr B, has not been able to enforce the court judgement he has against Mr X because he has gone bankrupt. Mr B considers the Council could have prosecuted Mr X for fraud and he could then have been able to successfully make a claim against Mr X for the £11000 he is due. It is not possible to say that fault by the Council has caused Mr B's claimed injustice. There was delay by the Council but that has not caused Mr B significant injustice.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (15 010 707)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 06-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it has delayed in completing its investigation into Mrs X's business and in making a decision on what action it should take. As a result Mrs X has been caused significant uncertainty which the Council has agreed to remedy as recommended.

  • Northumberland Council (15 019 772)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 16-Nov-2016

    Summary: The Council took too long to investigate Mrs C's complaint about the builder she contracted to build a house for her. It also communicated poorly with her. It did not act with fault in the way it decided whether to prosecute the builder. The Ombudsman will close the complaint as the Council will apologise and pay Mrs C £250 to reflect the time, trouble and frustration its delay has caused her.

;