Trading standards


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • City of London (17 001 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 15-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider this complaint about Council officers acting to investigate or prevent crime.

  • 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.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 015 523)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 17-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not help the complainant with something that is outside its remit. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Leicestershire County Council (16 017 380)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 14-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr T's complaint about the way the Council's Trading Standards team conducted a prosecution as it is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 009 889)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 10-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint that the Council will not compensate her for damage to her belongings or remove a service provider from its trading standards list of safe traders. This is because Mrs A has the right to ask the courts to decide on any fault by the contractor and I am unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions.

  • Shropshire Council (16 013 816)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 23-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council will not investigate his complaint about the practices of an auction house. The Ombudsman will not investigate as Mr Y is not caused significant injustice and it is unlikely the Council acted with fault.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (16 013 251)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 11-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a visit by Trading Standards officers to the complainant's home. The visit was part of criminal proceedings before a court of law.

  • 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.

  • Warwickshire County Council (16 002 478)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Trading standards 01-Nov-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council's response to issues about a water meter and charging for water. This is because there is no sign that fault by the Council has caused the complainant an injustice to warrant her involvement.

;