Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over an extension to a road closure which he says has inconvenienced him. The Ombudsman should cannot investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to take sanctions against a gas contractor when it overran the times stated in a public notice for a road closure. As a result, he says his commute to work was delayed for a longer period than he understood it would be.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he was affected by a road closure in his area which was advertised in a Council notice. The works were due to be completed within 21 days but he says it took several weeks longer to re-open the road. He complained to the Council about the extended closure and asked if the contractor involved had been fined for overrunning the closure dates.
5. The Council says the works to the gas mains took longer because the contractor encountered additional complexity and work required once the infrastructure was excavated. It granted permits to complete the works after the date of the public notice. The closure originally allowed pedestrian access, but the Council says it had to withdraw this because the public ignored site safety requirements which could have endangered the workforce.
6. The Council as highway authority has powers to extended road closure permits where infrastructure works take longer than originally proposed. The Council’s duty is to ensure the safety of highway users and the workforce involved. It did not impose any fines because the contractors applied for extensions to the permits to complete the works.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council used its powers to extend the permits in the public interest.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should cannot investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman