Summary: There is insufficient justification for us to exercise discretion to investigate the late part of Mr B’s complaint about the adequacy of highways provision. Mr B has not suffered significant enough personal injustice over and above other residents in his area to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained about the lack of adequate highways provision in tandem with new developments in his area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information Mr B provided and his recent correspondence with the Council. Mr B had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In his correspondence with the Council Mr B has referred to the high level of congestion in his town and on a major road near where he lives. He has spent a good deal of time pursuing his concerns about the adequacy of the highway network. Mr B complained the predecessor council’s development aspirations have taken precedence over the need for a safe, efficient and effective highway network. He said short term decisions have potentially jeopardised provision of extra highway capacity.
8. Mr B told us he has been complaining about the management of the interface between the planning and highway service. He said the matter goes back more than ten years to the period when the predecessor councils provided these services.
9. Mr B’s complaint to us about matters he has been aware of for more than twelve months is late. We have discretion to investigate late complaints if there are good reasons to do so. We look at the way the Council reached its decisions. We cannot question the merits of the Council’s decisions on planning applications if there is no evidence of administrative fault in the decision-making process. It was for the decision-makers to decide how much weight to give to each relevant planning consideration. We must consider whether any fault by a council has caused injustice to the complainant. Too much time has elapsed for us to reach safe conclusions now on whether any fault by the Council several years ago has caused injustice to Mr B. We would not be able to establish safely whether the outcome of the planning application process would have been better for Mr B.
10. The Council is continuing to consider planning applications which affect the highways in Mr B’s area. Other local residents are also affected by these applications. Mr B has not suffered significant enough personal injustice over and above other residents in his area to justify the Ombudsman investigating his complaint about recent planning decisions. Mr B has an opportunity to express his concerns by making representations on current and future planning applications directly to the Council and through his ward councillors.

Back to top

Final decision

11. There is insufficient justification for us to exercise discretion to investigate the late part of this complaint. Mr B has not suffered significant enough personal injustice over and above other residents in his area to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman