Summary: Mr P complains that the Council’s response to an application to temporarily close a road to allow a parade was confusing and not in accordance with its written policy. As the parade went ahead, there is not enough injustice to warrant investigation. In addition, the Council has agreed to review its policy. The Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve more through investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr P, complains about the way the Council responded to an application to close a road temporarily to allow a procession during a local fête.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered information supplied by Mr P who has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr P is part of a committee that organises a local fête. As part of the celebrations there is a parade through the village. The committee seeks permission from the Council each year to temporarily close off the road to allow the parade to pass. The Council’s powers in respect of this derive from S21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
5. The Council also has a written policy on road closures. It consults with the County Council which is the highway authority.
6. The Council wrote to the committee and agreed that the road could be closed so long as a 4 metre strip remained clear to allow access for emergency vehicles.
7. Mr P says that this is not in accordance with the Council’s policy which mentions the 4 metre strip only in the context of closures which affect only part of the width of the carriageway. He pointed out that in places the road to be closed was only 6 metres or so wide so maintaining a 4 metre strip free would actually be dangerous because the parade and spectators would be compressed into a very narrow area. Mr P suggested to the Council that it should pass responsibility for the road closures on to the highway authority for it to grant a temporary traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
8. The Council, when considering his complaint about this, agreed that its policy was not clear and said that it would clarify the highway authority’s requirements and then ensure that its guidance was revised and updated. It did not agree that overall responsibility should pass to the highway authority.
9. Notwithstanding any confusion, the 2018 parade went ahead as planned.

Assessment

10. Mr P has been put to some trouble clarifying the Council’s position but, apart from that, as the parade went ahead, the injustice is limited and not enough to trigger an investigation. In addition, the Council has conceded the main point of Mr P’s complaint and will seek clarification and update its guidance. This should prevent there being further confusion in future years. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to secure anything more than this.
11. Mr P would like responsibility to pass to the highway authority. However, I see no fault in the Council not agreeing to this request. The Town Police Clauses Act gives it specific responsibility for road closures for this purpose and I see no reason why a different Act should be used instead.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation, especially as it would be unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already agreed to do.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman