Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council’s Monitoring Office communicated with him over a decision to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood zone. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a councillor. In both cases, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Monitoring Officer failed to respond to queries he made about decision-making related to the introduction of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) zone. He also complains the Council failed to address all his complaint in its response.
2. Mr X also complains a councillor made false claims to a Council committee in relation to the LTN.
3. He says this has undermined his trust in the Council. He wants the Council to begin the process for implementing the LTN again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X was unhappy with the decision-making process followed by the Council when it decided to introduce an LTN in a neighbouring ward to where Mr X lives. His complaint centred on whether the decision was a ‘key decision’. Mr X believed it was and therefore the decision should have been made by a Council committee; instead, the senior councillor who had the relevant responsibility for transport (the Portfolio Holder) made the decision.
9. The Council’s Monitoring Officer responded and explained why it considered its decision-making was correct. When doing so, he made reference to the Council’s Constitution and applied this to the facts of the case. He said that regardless of whether the decision was a key one, it could still be made by the Portfolio Holder. He also reminded Mr X that the decision had already been scrutinised via the ‘call-in’ process by another committee of democratically elected councillors. This committee had not found fault in the decision-making process.
10. Mr X continued to email the Monitoring Officer. Eventually the Monitoring Officer stopped replying and sent him a link to the Council’s complaints process.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. It was for the Council to decide, in line with statutory guidance and its Constitution, whether the decision was a key one and whether it could be made by an individual councillor. It has demonstrated it did so. The decision was later challenged and the correct process was followed. Mr X is clearly extremely unhappy with the Council’s decision; however, that does make it wrong. There is no evidence of fault in how the decision was made. Therefore, we cannot criticise the decision itself.
12. Secondly, we will only investigate complaints where the complainant has experienced significant personal injustice. By that we mean the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. I appreciate Mr X has lost trust with the Council but I do not consider that to constitute a significant enough injustice to require a full investigation.
13. Mr X also complains that a councillor gave false evidence to the committee which ‘called-in’ the decision. The Council decided there was no merit to his complaint and declined to carry out an independent investigation. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make and there is no evidence in how the decision was made. We will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman