Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Kent County Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 25-007-200 Sector Transport And Highways Category Traffic Management Decided 30 September 2025

View Kent County Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the injustice claimed by Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

Mr X complained the Council did not provide sufficient diversion road signs to direct drivers around a road closure.

Mr X said this caused him to get lost which caused him extreme distress.

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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (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

Mr X complained the Council did not provide sufficient diversion road signs to direct drivers around a road closure. Mr X said this caused him to get lost which caused him extreme distress and led to a delay in reaching his destination.

The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the disruption and frustration caused. The Council also said it sent the relevant team to carry out an inspection upon receipt of Mr X’s complaint. It also said it took special attention to check the correct signage remained in place during the road closure. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

While the distress Mr X suffered due to getting lost is understandable, this injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the injustice claimed by Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Kent County Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-016-851 Other
25-017-670 Other
25-018-135 Other
25-015-340 Other
25-007-298 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation