Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to provide him for a date of when it will replace bollards on a pavement to prevent vehicles from mounting and parking on the pavement, which Mr Y is concerned is a safety hazard to him as a pedestrian.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y complained to the Council about vehicles parking on the pavement following the removal of bollards on his road. The Council considered the information Mr Y provided, including photographs and his concerns about pedestrian safety. It agreed in its complaint response in October 2023 that it would complete repairs to reinstate the bollards. It was however unable to provide a date for this but said it would prioritise the works in line with its prioritisation process. Mr Y was dissatisfied with this response and so approached us in November.

Analysis

6. As part of its policy for prioritising roadwork repairs the Council has considered factors such as risk, and the significance of the consequences if work is not completed. It has also considered the information Mr Y provided in his complaint, including photographs when deciding whether repair works were necessary. As it has considered the issue along side its policy to prioritise it based on relevant factors such as public safety and has agreed to complete the works Mr Y has requested, we would not be able to find fault in its decision-making process. We would therefore not investigate this complaint.
7. Further, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. While Mr Y may feel strongly about the issue, the Council’s response has agreed to reinstate bollards, as he has requested, and so we would not consider his concerns, as his injustice, to be a significant harm or loss, such that it would be proportionate to investigate this complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman