Summary: Mr X complained about a councillor’s insensitive use of words when discussing a local cycle scheme. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a councillor using the word ‘tragedy’ to describe the potential loss of a proposed cycle route. He says it was inappropriate given the current number of deaths nationally in the current coronavirus situation.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says a local councillor remarked in a Council meeting that it would be a tragedy for local cyclists if existing cycles lanes were removed from some roads in the area. Mr X says this was inappropriate language given the current coronavirus pandemic which he regards as tragic circumstances for the victims and their families.
5. The Council’s Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint but decided that it did not breach the members’ Code of Conduct and did not pursue the matter further.
6. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused to Mr X by the councillor’s remark. It was not personally directed at him or any member of the public. It did not refer to any matter other than his opinion of the proposals in the context of loss of a public facility. There was no use of inappropriate language which might amount to a breach of the Code.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman