Summary: The complainant says the Council misrepresented responses to a consultation to justify a pre-determined result. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The personal injustice not significant enough to justify our involvement. And it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, say the Council misrepresented responses to a consultation to justify a pre-determined result. He says many responses were categorized as ‘neutral’ when they should have been classed as opposing a proposed road widening scheme.
2. Mr X says the road which is the subject of the consultation may become more dangerous. Plus, public trust in future consultations is diminished.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provide by Mr X in his complaint form. I also considered the Council’s responses to his complaint and the information on the Council’s website.
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2019, the Council ran a consultation on a proposed road widening scheme. The consultation included the following:

“As this is only a 300-metre section of the road, no specific cycle lanes are included in this scheme. However, we are including an extra wide footway to the north that can become a shared pedestrian and cycle way, and link to further cycling provision in the future.”

7. The Council received 284 responses. It published the results of the consultation. It said that 55% of the responses received were neutral.
8. Mr X says this is wrong. He says that many comments were in opposition to the scheme. He complained to the Council.
9. The Council advised most comments it received that were against the scheme were based on cycling issues. However, as the scheme specifically excluded cycle lanes these comments it classed these as neutral.
10. I understand Mr X considers the Council’s classification as manipulation of the responses to ensure its desired outcome. However, the Council consulted on a scheme which did not have a cycle path as an option. So, if people were against it for that reason only, they cannot be said to have expressed a view on the scheme that was proposed.
11. Mr X has provided examples of other objections to the scheme because of concerns about pollution and climate change among others. These comments were also classed as neutral by the Council. He says by classifying what he views as legitimate objections to the proposal as neutral comments; the Council is diminishing the public trust in its consultations.
12. I understand Mr X’s concerns. However, he has acknowledged the scheme is going ahead and an investigation by the Ombudsman will not change this.
13. The Ombudsman considers complaints about fault which have led directly to significant personal injustice to the complainant. In this case Mr X says the scheme may cause the road to become more dangerous. He has not provided any definitive information about why this will affect him more than any other road user. I consider the injustice claimed on this point is therefore speculative.
14. Mr X raises concerns about the public trust in future consultations. Again, we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that:
• the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
15. We will not normally investigate a complaint where:
• The complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider political or community campaign. In these cases, their concerns may be better addressed to their local councillor or MP rather than the Ombudsman; or
• The complainant is not the person primarily affected and is complaining about a secondary impact on them, rather than acting on behalf of the person directly affected.
16. A general loss of trust in the Council’s consultation or decision making is not a significant personal injustice affecting only Mr X. Without such personal injustice I consider the restrictions described above apply.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation by the Ombudsman. Nor is it likely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman