Trading standards

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 011 376)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 27-Jan-2020

    Summary: there is no fault by the Council in its consideration of Mr F's concerns about the quality of specialist glass units fitted in his home which is a listed building

  • Plymouth City Council (19 004 257)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 20-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not investigate allegations against his company in a fair and professional manner. There is no fault in the way the Council carried out its investigation and we have closed Mr X's complaint.

  • Warwickshire County Council (19 000 317)

    Statement Not upheld Trading standards 22-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to his concerns about the work of two builders at his property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters and has completed his investigation.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 008)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 18-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found initial delay with the way the Council investigated Mr D's report about a gas heating company wrongly claiming his boiler needed repairing to the value of £800. The delay of about 7 weeks caused no significant injustice to him. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with his formal complaint. It investigated and responded to his complaint within published time scales.

  • Cheshire East Council (18 010 906)

    Statement Upheld Trading standards 11-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to take sufficient action over his Trading Standards complaint. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

  • 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.