Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme’s handling of Mr X’s claim. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and cannot therefore criticise its decision. Also, it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of redress in the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme (ADR). He says it mishandled his claim against a company and failed to be independent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I considered the Council’s ADR scheme rules and procedures. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Alternative Dispute Resolution

6. The Council runs an ADR scheme. The ADR rules and procedures are available on the Council’s website. Its objective is to provide a quick alternative to resolve contractual disputes fairly and independently. Participation in the scheme is not compulsory and its decisions are not binding on consumers.

What happened

7. Mr X contracted a company (Y) to renovate his property. Y started the restoration works. But because the property is a listed building, consent was needed from the local Council before the work started. As no consent had been sought, the local Council served an enforcement notice on Mr X and the restoration works stopped. Mr X complained to Y, but they could not agree who was responsible for obtaining consent.
8. Mr X asked the Council’s ADR scheme to consider the dispute and Y agreed to participate. Each side provided evidence to support their case. Mr X said Y was at fault for not obtaining the consent. He also said some of Y’s work did not meet the standard of reasonable care and skill. The ADR decision found Mr X was responsible for obtaining consent, but Y was in breach of contract for its failure to ensure consent was in place before starting the restoration. It did not find fault in Y’s other work. It decided not to give a monetary award as the evidence Mr X provided was not enough to support his claim.
9. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s handling of the ADR process and complained to the Council. He said it made its decision in haste and failed to consider the evidence available or ask for more evidence. He was unhappy Y had been allowed to provide more evidence and raised concerns about the independence of the ADR scheme.
10. In response the Council explained the scheme rules and its independence. It told Mr X it was his responsibility to provide enough evidence to support his case. It said it had considered the evidence provided but explained why this was not enough to reach the decision he wanted. The Council also told Mr X its decision was not binding on him and he could pursue the matter in court.
11. Mr X remains unhappy about the Council’s decision and how it handled his claim.

Assessment

12. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council did not follow the procedure, rules, or independence of its ADR scheme. Mr X was responsible for providing enough information to support his case. Indeed, the Council found in his favour for part of the dispute. However, it found it did not have enough evidence to support the amount Mr X claimed, and it did not agree with his view on the standard of work provided by Y. As I am unlikely to find fault in the way the Council made its decision, I cannot criticise the decision itself. An investigation by the Ombudsman is therefore not warranted.
13. Also, the Council’s decision is not binding on Mr X. Given this is a legal dispute, and the amount of compensation Mr X seeks is significant, this is a matter best determined by the courts as it cannot be achieved by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and cannot therefore criticise its decision. Also, it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of redress in the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman