The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduction a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to introduce a permanent Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in the area he lives. This scheme restricts vehicular access to roads.
Mr X stated that a Councillor breached the Code of Conduct at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee where the LTNs permanency was discussed. He said the Councillor had a registered interest in a cycling campaign group, therefore, should not have spoken at the Committee meeting. Mr X states this misconduct invalidated the recommendations of the Committee to the Cabinet, which made the decision to make the LTN permanent.
Mr X also said the Council had breached its constitution as it failed to: Consider whether the schemes offer value for money to residents.
Promote community cohesions, given that most residents were against the scheme.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council's Monitoring Officer is responsible for considering allegations that an elected member has breached the Members' Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer's decisions. We are also unable to investigate or comment on the actions of the councillor complained about. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
The Council’s Monitoring Officer (MO) considered the complaint about the Councillior, their involvement with a cycling group and whether they should have spoken at the Scrutiny Committee. The MO said: Although the cycling group supported the introduction of the LTN, the cycling group were not responsible for applying for the Traffic Regulation Orders that were necessary to introduce the LTN.
The Councillor was transparent about their involvement with the cycling group.
There was no reason for the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee to not allow the Councillor to speak.
I am satisfied the MO fully considered Mr X’s complaint and set out their reasons why they did not consider the Councillor’s behaviour a breach of conduct. The Independent Person reviewed and agreed with that decision. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint, we will not investigate.
We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has breached its constitution by not considering value for money by implementing the LTN. Any decisions around Council spending, and value for money affect all residents in the Council's area. Therefore, the law says we cannot investigate.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council breached the constitution as it has not promoted community cohesion. We can only consider if there was fault in the steps the Council took before making the LTN scheme permanent.
The Council consulted on the scheme, sought feedback and completed independent reviews. It confirmed it made changes to the scheme based on feedback received. The Scrutiny Committee considered the permanency of the LTM before making recommendation to the Cabinet. As there is no evidence of fault in the steps the Council took before making the LTN permanent, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman