Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council provided incorrect information when responding to the Ombudsman’s enquiries on a previous complaint. He says his road is only 250 metres from the access to a new development and not 500 metres as previously stated.
2. Mr X also complains roadworks for installing utilities for the new development are outside his home. He also complains that the changes to the traffic system prove the drawings provided by the applicant are inaccurate.
3. Mr X wants the Council to rectify the proposed changes to the road layout and compensate him for the effects the new road layout will have on his family and property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the site entrance is 250 metres from the entrance to the road where he lives. He complains that street works, including installation of utilities to serve the development, have impacted the main trunk road to which his road connects and have been disrupting. He says the drawings submitted by the developer which were accepted by the Council were inaccurate.
8. He claims the changes to the highways and traffic will have disastrous effects on his family’s health because of increased emissions and lowered property value.
9. The impact on property value is not a material planning consideration for the Council. Any impact of increased emissions from the main road is not personal to Mr X and his family.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault leading directly to Mr X suffering a significant personal injustice to warrant out involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman