Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to display any signs regarding pre-planned maintenance work that was due to take place. He said because of this he could not complete his planned work which he said impacted his business. The Ombudsman does not find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to display any signs regarding pre-planned maintenance work that was due to take place. He said because of this he could not complete his planned work which he said impacted his business.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. The road traffic (temporary restrictions) procedure regulations 1992 states with 14 days after making the order, the Council shall publish a notice in the newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated.
7. Council’s may put up site notices on the roads impacted if it thought it would be desirable in the interests of giving adequate publicity to the order.

Summary of the key events

8. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2024. He said:
• he had been asked by his client to undertake some work in the alleyway at the rear of the retail premises;
• on attendance, he was told by a council officer that he could not gain access to the area for around three weeks as the Council was carrying out work;
• he carried out a site survey on the 23 February 2024 and a follow up visit on the 28 February 2024. But he said there were no notices on display about the work;
• his client had not received any notice about the work; and
• he had paid for a three-day parking waiver with the Council to cover this period. He also said he had lost three days work for two people.
9. Mr X’s client contacted the Council shortly after stating they had not been notified of the works.
10. The Council’s contractor confirmed Mr X’s client was informed verbally. They also said no advanced notices were put up. But said Mr X had access to the area via a different route.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its process in April 2024. It said:
• the works had been ongoing for over 12 months and were covered by a temporary traffic regulations order;
• its contractor had visited Mr X’s client and gave verbal notice prior to closing access;
• there was an alternative access for Mr X to access the work;
• its contractor acknowledged that there had been no notifications up in advance of the works. But it said this had now been rectified;
• it did not agree it was liable for the situation. But it agreed there were lessons to learn. It said the issues had been taken up with the contractor around the way they communicate and sign next stages; and
• it confirmed it would change or re-issue the parking waiver at no cost for Mr X’s return visit.
12. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said:
• his client was not aware of the closures;
• on the day of attending the site, the council officer said they may not have visited his client. They also did not mention there being a different access point. But he said the other access point had gates;
• why were the notices not in place at the time; and
• stated he had already paid for the parking waiver. He asked if this could be reimbursed and reiterated how he had lost income.
13. In April 2024, the Council’s contractor confirmed to the Council it verbally engaged with Mr X’s client before the work commenced. They said the business said they were not impacted by the works and therefore periodic visits were undertaken going forward.
14. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its process in May 2024. It said:
• its contractor did visit Mr X’s client before the works started;
• it cannot explain why the council officer brought uncertainty into the situation by stating the contractor may not have visited Mr X’s client;
• it could not challenge that Mr X may have found gates to the other access locked. But it said any time council officers had attended, there had been unrestricted access;
• it acknowledges that no signs were previously up, and this could have been managed better; and
• it had asked for Mr X’s parking permit fee to be reimbursed. But it said it was clear Mr X’s client was aware of the works and closure prior to the work starting.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

15. The Council’s contractor verbally informed Mr X’s client of the works. The contractor said the business said they were not impacted by the works and therefore periodic visits were undertaken going forward. But the contractor said no advanced notices were put up.
16. The works completed by the Council were part of a temporary traffic regulations order. The legislation states councils may put site notices on the roads impacted if it thought it would be desirable in the interests of giving adequate publicity to the order. Therefore, there was no requirement on the Council to put up site notices and I therefore could not criticise it. The Council has now put-up site notices. But it does not mean it was fault for them to not have been put up initially. It evidences the Council has taken this on board. It has proactively taken action to prevent further similar issues.
17. The Council agreed in May 2024 to reimburse Mr X’s parking fee. But this was not completed until November 2024. The delay in actioning this is fault. But I do not consider this to have caused significant injustice to Mr X. The Council said this has now been resolved.
18. Mr X said at no point did the Council advise him of its complaints process. From the evidence seen, the stage one response did not advise him that he could escalate to stage two. The stage two response also did not direct Mr X to the LGO if he remained unhappy. This is fault and not line with the Council’s policy. But I do not consider his to have caused him significant injustice. This is because Mr X still followed the correct process and therefore, he did not miss out on the opportunity to complain.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman