Summary: Mr X complains Council policy is wrong in requiring members of the public to only request road improvements via their local councillor rather than in their own name. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should stop insisting that road improvement requests from members of the public be made via elected local representatives. He says people should be able to apply in their own name and that the Council’s policy should be changed to allow this.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X contacted the Council about road improvements he wanted carried out on a road close to his home. As a result of his contact the Council agreed to install signs to indicate that the road was not suitable for HGV use and to install bollards in part of the road to deter illegal parking.
5. In pursuing these matters, Mr X complained that the Council’s policy shown on its website about how to request road improvements was wrong and should be changed. He said members of the public should not have to contact a local councillor to act for them when requesting road improvements and that they should be able to do so on their own behalf. He asked for this requirement to be changed.
6. The Council responded by explaining it receives a great number of requests for road improvements which far exceed its available budget and so it has a system to prioritise where to allocate resources. It went on to say that in cases of locally important requests, it suggested that residents contact their Parish or Town Councils and elected County Members to gather community support. It explained that they had access to funding, separate to the Council’s budget, which could be used when the Council’s budget could not meet the improvement request.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

8. The Council’s website explains that it prioritises improvements and that it produces a priority list of changes to be undertaken. It also sets out what people can do if they want to request a road safety improvement and the process they can follow. It starts by detailing how to check the crash history of a site and goes on to explain how to contact local community representatives who may have separate funds available to support the request.
9. While the information provided on the website does say that if these representatives are not supportive then it would be difficult for the Council to prioritise the request and it should not be contacted, it does not prevent people from making individual contact with their request.
10. We cannot review the merits of council decisions or policy and, as Mr X’s case shows, the Council can and will consider requests made by individual members of the public who have not gone through a local representative.
11. While I note Mr X was not happy about the way his complaint was handled by the Council, we will not generally investigate complaint handling matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says there may be reasons why members of the public might not want to make their requests via local representatives and that it is against the rules of natural justice for the Council to insist on it. However, as his contact with the Council shows, it can and will consider requests for road improvements made directly to it. While he says a local representative might not be as well informed as he is about road improvements, and that they may have personal reasons for not being open to suggestions made to them, these are not reasons which lead me to conclude a formal investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman