The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complains about errors by the Council relating to a highways licence. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because it is unlikely he can add to the information or the outcome already supplied to Mr D by the Council. In addition, some of the remedies sought by Mr D are not for the Ombudsman.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council repeatedly mishandled his highways licence application and wrongly issued fixed penalty notices.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information we have from Mr D and the Council.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
Mr D complains about the Council’s actions after he applied for a highways licence in 2021. In December 2021 and 2022 the Council considered Mr D’s complaints about the handling of his application and subsequent fixed penalty notices issued to his company. In March it sent its final response explaining in detail its findings. It accepted there had been errors by Officers and it had not provided the required level of service. It set out its errors and why these occurred. It also set out what it had done to rectify the fault and injustice to Mr D by cancelling the fixed penalty notices and apologising. Furthermore, it explained what it had done to prevent the errors reoccurring in the future. Mr D continued to correspond with the Council, in July he told the Council that he would instruct his legal team to claim for losses, expenses and damages.
The Council has provided Mr D with a detailed explanation of what went wrong in its correspondence with him. It has also cancelled any incorrectly issued fixed penalty notices and set out the actions it has taken to improve its service. While I appreciate Mr D did not receive a reasonable level of service from the Council, I cannot see that further investigation would add to the facts of the case or lead to a different outcome. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot instruct the Council on staff disciplinary measures. If Mr D wishes to pursue a claim for damages that is a matter he should pursue via the courts.
Final decision
I have discontinued the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman