The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not follow the correct authorisation process when setting the height of replacement speed bumps. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and there is not enough evidence that the alleged fault has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to follow the correct authorisation process when it changed the height of some replacement speed bumps.
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) But we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The 12-month time restriction, detailed in paragraph 3 above, applies to the complaint. This is because the replacement speed bumps were installed in 2015, Mr X corresponded with the Council about them in 2018, and then again in 2021. Yet Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until early-2022. I see no reasons why Mr X was prevented from contacting us soon after he first became aware of the changes to the speed bumps, so I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate this late complaint now.
And even if the time restriction did not apply, I have seen no evidence to suggest Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of any failure to correctly authorise the change in the height of the speed bumps. In that regard, I am particularly mindful the Council says the heights of the replacement speed bumps are within the legal thresholds.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have complained to us sooner, and there is not enough evidence that the alleged fault has caused him a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman