Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a consultation about a cycle way. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council conducted a consultation into the diversion of a cycle lane. Mr X said no meaningful conclusion could be drawn from the consultation because it was flawed.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council conducted a flawed consultation in summer 2025. He said the Council could not draw a conclusion from the consultation. Mr X said the Council had denied his Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the technical specifications of the cycle scheme in autumn 2024 and then provided this information to third parties during the consultation in 2025.
7. In its complaint response, the Council recognised that some detailed plans about the proposed cycle route had been shared with third parties. The Council said it had received several hundred responses to the consultation and had responded to requests for further information about the scheme. It provided a copy of the technical drawings to Mr X as part of its complaint response.
8. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because the Information Commissioner is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint the Council shared information he had previously requested under an FOI with a third party, and not with him.
9. Mr X also complained the way in which the Council conducted the consultation was flawed because not enough information about the scheme was provided, and the length of consultation was too short.
10. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X the consultation had run for 6 weeks in June and July 2025. It said the time period was standard for this type of non-statutory consultation. The Council said technical plans for the cycle route were available on the consultation site, a video of the proposal and visualisations were also available. It said consultation feedback was reviewed and considered at a Cabinet meeting in November 2025. The Cabinet report detailed changes to the proposed cycle scheme in response to consultation feedback.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council advised Mr X the consultation ran for a standard period. It said a variety of information about the cycle scheme was available, and included information on how consultation feedback had been used to alter the cycle scheme within a public report.
12. 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 serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
13. While I appreciate Mr X's concerns about the way in which the consultation was conducted, I do not consider the issue complained about caused him a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman