Summary: Mr X complains the authority has wasted taxpayer’s money, failed to provide him with information and not followed its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which affect all or most of the people in an authority’s areas. The Information Commissioner's Officer is the suitable body to deal with complaints about access to information. And we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because any failing in the complaint procedure alone.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority:
• has wasted taxpayer’s money by painting parking restriction road markings shortly before the roads were resurfaced
• Failed to provide information about costs associated with the road markings; and
• Failed to follow its own complaints procedure

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
4. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaints and the Authority’s responses. He had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X complained about the Authority’s decision to paint parking control markings on roads near his home, shortly before they were resurfaced. He says this is a waste of taxpayer’s money as the markings had to be repainted.
7. The law says I cannot investigate anything that affects all or most of the inhabitants of an areas. A complaint about a council wasting taxpayers’ money falls within this restriction.
8. Mr X also complains the Authority has failed to respond to his requests for information about the cost of the work.
9. I do not intend to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as it is reasonable to him to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
10. The final part of Mr X’s complaint is the authority failed to follow its complaints procedure when dealing with his complaint.
11. While we would expect the Authority to respond according to its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, when we are not investigating the substantive issue. We do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

For the reasons given above I cannot and should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman