The Ombudsman's final decision
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
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.
He wants: the Council to withdraw its decision an investigation into the manager an apology
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint and the published ADR procedures.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
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.
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.
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.
Final decision
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
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman