Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a road closure which caused the complainant to miss her train. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we have discretion about whether to investigate any complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, missed a train because she was delayed by a road closure. She had to buy another train ticket and was late arriving at her event. Ms X says there was no notice of the closure and she wants compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X was delayed by a road closure. A journey which usually takes less than half an hour took almost two hours. Due to the delay Ms X missed her train and had to buy a new ticket. She was late getting to her planned event which was stressful. Ms X says there was no advance notice of the closure and nothing on any road maps.
6. In response to her request for compensation the Council said it does not offer compensation for delays caused by roadworks. It referred to government guidance which rejects compensation for businesses which suffer a loss due to roadworks; it explained the government decided not to make provision for compensation when it updated the legislation. The Council acknowledged Ms X is not a business but said the same principle applies.
7. The Council’s website says it advertises road closures on the website; it said it also uses static message boards and may notify people who are directly affected (for example residents along the road).
8. I appreciate Ms X was inconvenienced and delays like this are stressful and meant she had to spend money changing her ticket. However, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation or ask for compensation. There is no statutory requirement for councils to provide advance notice of closures for road works although the Council does provide information in at least some cases. It is also correct there is no scope for compensation for losses caused by road closures and, while the guidance specifically refers to businesses, I do not see fault in the Council echoing that guidance.
9. In addition, even if the Council had publicised the closure, there is no guarantee Ms X would have seen the notifications, and if she had taken another route it is possible she may still have been delayed as traffic might have been displaced onto other routes. I am not saying Ms X would definitely still have been delayed but it opens up an element of uncertainty which is another reason why we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we have discretion about whether to start an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman