Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice Mr X says he received from the Council concerning his new business venture. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he received advice from the Council during a 10 to 15 minute telephone call to its Clean Air Charges Team that there would be “no issues” with the business he intended to set up but that a few weeks later it told him his business was illegal and that he had to stop trading immediately. He says he had invested over £20,000 in the business and he should be put back to the position he was in before the incorrect advice had been given.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council that during a telephone call with one of its staff, he had been advised that his proposed business venture would be fully operable under current laws and legislation. Having then invested all his time and savings into the venture, he was told a few weeks later that his business was illegal and if he did not stop it, he would be prosecuted.
6. The Council investigated his complaint. It found no-one of the name Mr X said he had spoken to during the call but confirmed it had a record that he had spoken to someone in its Clean Air Charges Team. It had no recoding of the call itself due to the lapse of time but explained the person he had spoken to had no experience in the setting up of a business and no recollection of the call. It also said its department which deals with business related enquiries would not have provided advice on licences or encouraged a caller to make such a significant investment decision over the telephone or face to face.
7. While the Council accepted it had delayed unreasonably in responding to his complaint and offered £150 compensation for this, it said it had no evidence to support his claim he had been given incorrect business advice and so would not pay compensation as he had requested.
8. The Council considered the accounts of Mr X and the person who took his call and concluded it could not say he had been given incorrect advice. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to add to that already carried out by the Council or come to a conclusion different to that the Council came to.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman