Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the design of a zebra crossing located in a conservation area where the complainant lives. The alleged failure in the design process has not caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider the conservation area appraisal and management plan for his village when it designed and constructed a zebra crossing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. With regard to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the appearance of the zebra crossing and its impact on the character of the conservation area.
6. But Mr X lives some 250m away from the crossing, and I am not persuaded the personal injustice caused to him by it is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman investigating the alleged fault in the design process.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman