The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly manage and enforce safety standards in relation to highway works carried out by a utility company. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant injustice.
The complaint
X complains the Council has failed to properly manage and enforce safety standards in relation to urgent highway works undertaken by a utility company in her road. X says it caused her stress and anxiety in not being able to walk safely down the road, and says she had to change plans when a relative in a wheelchair came to visit her.
X also said the Council failed to provide her with information about its contractual procedures or its complaint policy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or 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), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made a 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) The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
the ‘Safety at Streetworks and Road Works: A Code of Practice’ document.
information from the Council about the status of its enquiries with the utility company.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A utility company carried out urgent works to relay a 3m section of pipe in the pavement, further along the road where X lives. I understand the works took 5 days. Temporary ramps/signs were in place to enable people to cross to the pavement on the other side, and then cross back again once they had passed the worksite.
Overall, I find there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify pursuing this complaint further. In reaching this view I am mindful that: Given the Council’s limited resources and the volume of road works being undertaken across its area, it cannot actively monitor every site, and will largely rely on members of the public to report any issues The Council visited the site, but unfortunately the works had already been completed.
In response to X’s complaint, the Council followed the matter up with the utility company and it provided photographs of the works. This has enabled the Council to reach a conclusion that, taking into account the ‘Safety at Streetworks' guidance, there are insufficient grounds upon which to take further action. I see no fault in how it reached this decision, so I cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if X disagrees with this outcome.
The Council provided X with a website link to its complaints process in its Stage 1 complaint response.
The Council apologised for the lack of information contained within its initial response to her report of the blocked pavement.
In addition, even if there was some fault by the Council, we will not start an investigation if we decide the impact of that fault on the person bringing the complaint is not so significant that we should investigate. This means 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 the Council.
I appreciate X says she was caused inconvenience and distress by the highways works. But, considering the relatively short duration of the works and that it was possible to cross to the pavement on the opposite side of the road, I am not persuaded the personal injustice to X was so significant as to justify the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further.
Finally, if X believes the Council is withholding information from her, then she can submit a formal freedom of information request. If X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to such a request, it seems reasonable to expect her to pursue the matter with the ICO.
Final decision
We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing her a significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman