Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s decision to temporarily close roads in her local area. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the Council’s decision to temporarily close roads in her local area. Mrs B also complains the Council failed to tell her about the closures. Mrs B says the closures were not justified, and there was a lack of consideration by the Council about the impact of the closures on residents. Mrs B says the closures meant she was late to a family function. Mrs B says the Council advised her to park her car on a different road, but the following day, her car had been damaged. Mrs B says the Council has failed to follow its own complaints policy.

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mrs B’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I also gave Mrs B the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. In its responses to Mrs B’s complaints, the Council explained the road closures were necessary due to reports of inconsiderate driving in the area. It was a temporary decision, but urgent action was needed. The Council explained it did not have a legal duty to write to residents about a road closure because of an emergency safety issue. The Council issued 200 letters in the immediate vicinity, but it did not deliver a letter to Mrs B. The Council has apologised for this. The Council has said it does not accept responsibility for the damage to Mrs B’s car. The roads within the area have now re-opened.
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.
6. There is no requirement for the Council to consult with and notify residents about emergency road closures. Due to the very nature of such closures, this would not be possible. The Council has provided Mrs B with a reasonable explanation for the decision to close the roads. Based on the information available, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
7. Also, whilst the Council provided some guidance to Mrs B, it was ultimately her decision to park her car on a public highway. If Mrs B thinks the Council should be responsible for the damage to her car, she can make a claim against its insurers.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs B’s complaints. Where the substantive matters themselves do not warrant investigation, the Ombudsman will not normally consider how a Council responded to a complaint. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman