Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s completion of the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council:
• Failed to follow the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure; and
• should not have completed ADR procedure after becoming aware the trader had provided false information.
2. He wants:
• the Council to withdraw its decision
• an investigation into the manager
• an apology

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint and the published ADR procedures.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X chose to use the Council’s ADR process to try and resolve a dispute with a trader who he had engaged to work for him. He says the Council should not have continued with the ADR procedure when it became aware of evidence of criminal activity which should have been reported to the police, allowing Mr X to engage a solicitor.
7. Mr X also complains the Council failed to follow the correct procedure as the officer used an electronic signature and delayed in sending the final response.
8. I have considered the ADR procedures published online by the Council. I have seen no evidence to show the Council must cease the process if evidence of dishonesty comes to light. Nor have I seen evidence that an electronic signature is unacceptable.
9. The Council recognises it did not make its decision within 28 days of receiving all the information from Mr X and the trader. It apologised for this explaining there was a significant increase in the number of cases received. I do not consider the delay caused significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement. And I consider the apology an appropriate remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions
• We do not consider the delay in the response caused sufficient personal injustice which warrants our involvement; and
• We cannot require the Council to withdraw its decision

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman