Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to investigate businesses which allegedly breached COVID-19 restrictions. The Council’s alleged fault has not disadvantaged the complainant directly and significantly enough to warrant investigation. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and we consider this is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed:
• to investigate his complaint that local business breached COVID-19 restrictions
• failed to investigate his complaint that a low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) negatively impacted the health and wellbeing during pandemic; and
• failed to respond to his complaint in time

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021, the Council had limited powers to close or restrict access to business for public health reasons. The police, not the Council, had powers to enforce against breaches of the COVID-19 restrictions by members of the public gathering and breaching social distancing rules.
7. The Council says that businesses were checked for compliance and advised the police. It found no evidence businesses were working in breach of restrictions.
8. Mr X also sought the Council’s response to his view that an LTN was negatively impacting the general health and wellbeing of the public. The Council told Mr X it believes the LTN has a positive impact on health and wellbeing. It reduces traffic speeds and encourages walking and cycling. It also says the scheme promoted social distancing when COVID-19 controls were in place.
9. Mr X complained in 2021. The Council did not respond to his complaint until almost a year later, when prompted to do so by our enquiries. This is fault. However, it has apologised for the delay, and I consider this to be a suitable remedy.
10. As explained, we will normally only investigate where the alleged fault has caused the person complaining a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to oversee or police councils’ activities. Therefore, I have considered how the Council not acting against businesses for allegedly breaching the restrictions affects Mr X.
11. I note Mr X did not need to visit the business which he says were breaching the restrictions. And it is generally accepted infection is less likely outdoors than indoors. I am not persuaded LTN directly links to any significantly increased risk to Mr X himself.
12. Even if the above points did not apply, I must consider what an investigation might achieve. Since Mr X complained to the Council, the situation with COVID-19 has changed and restrictions have now been removed. So, if we were to find fault, any possible recommendations would be unlikely to be relevant. Therefore, an investigation would be disproportionate regardless of the lack of significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate ’s complaint because the apology is a suitable remedy for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. And his concerns about businesses breach COVID-19 restrictions and the LTN has not caused Mr X a significant, direct, personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman