Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a pedestrian crossing. This is because there is not enough evidence the matters complained about have caused Ms Y significant personal injustice. We are also unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Ms Y the Council consulted on plans to install four pedestrian crossings but only installed three. Ms Y says this has reduced elderly residents’ ability to cross the road safely. Ms Y also complains the Council did not engage with concerns or attend a meeting to discuss the matter. Ms Y wants the Council to attend a meeting with residents, carry out a full safety audit, and report its findings.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We do not investigate every complaint. We apply our Assessment Code to decide which cases to investigate. This includes considering the level of personal injustice and whether an investigation would add to the Council’s response. We will not investigate where the injustice is not serious enough to justify public resources, even if there may have been some fault.
6. Ms Y complained the removal of the fourth crossing affects elderly residents. However, we have seen no evidence of a significant personal injustice to Ms Y. The impact described is general to the wider community rather than a direct, personal injustice to her.
7. I also consider it unlikely we would find fault by the Council. The Council considered alternative locations and options for a fourth crossing. It concluded these would introduce other safety risks it could not adequately mitigate. The Council also decided not to attend a site meeting, as it did not consider this would be constructive given the technical constraints and the review it had already completed.
8. The Council considered the concerns raised by Ms Y and explained its reasoning. While Ms Y disagrees with the outcome, the available evidence suggests the Council assessed the matter properly and followed its decision-making processes.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint there is not enough evidence the matters complained about have caused Ms Y significant personal injustice. We are also unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman