The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road closures, or the Council’s use of its Persistent Complainants policy. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the amount of time it was taking the Council to complete repairs to two roads close to where he lives. He said the Council had closed one road in December 2023, resulting in a significant detour. He said one-way traffic lights had been installed on the other road for over a year. Mr X said the Council had not considered the impact the closures were having on the community where he lives.
Mr X also complained about the Council’s decision to send him an ‘informal warning’ in response to his contact about the road closures. He said the language used by the Council was inappropriate. He said the Council was trying to restrict his contact about legitimate concerns.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(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
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the ongoing use of traffic lights, or the recent road closure for the following reasons: We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. Although frustrating, I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant injustice.
The Council had provided information about the closures on its website. This sets our reasons for the delays, including issues with landownership. Investigation by the Ombudsman is not going to accelerate the work the Council is currently undertaking. I am satisfied the Council has provided sufficient information about the work it is completing. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue an informal warning letter. In the Council’s letter it referred to its policy and set out why it was sending the letter. It said it had sent Mr X a formal response, but he had continued to pursue matters. It said if his contact continued, it would consider contact restrictions.
I appreciate Mr X dislikes the term ‘informal warning’, however, the Council has used the language in that policy when communicating with Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. And, although he disagrees his contact meets the criteria for the informal warning, it is a judgement for the Council to make. The Council has set out the reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman