Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s design and implementation of a cycleway scheme in his area. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council failing to take sufficient account of resident’s views on its introduction of a cycleway scheme in his area. He says there are issues about the scheme which he has suggested could be improved but the Council ignored his views. He also says that defects in the design and construction have caused problems with pooling water in places.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the Council failed to give proper consideration of resident’s views when it proposed a cycleway scheme in his area. He says that he raised many points about the scheme including safety issues and that none of his views have been incorporated.
6. The Council consulted with residents about the scheme but there is no duty for it to include public views in the final decision on the scheme. Highway authorities have wide powers to introduce traffic management schemes and only a minimum of notification and consultation is necessary. The Council says that all highway projects are subject to a safety risk assessment by its officers and that this includes cyclists. The Council did publish resident feedback on its website after the consultation and apologised to Mr X that his comments were not included.
7. Mr X questioned the quality of the construction work because sections have been subject to water pooling after heavy rain. The Council has undertaken some drainage clearing and says that any defects identified in construction would be referred to the contractor to rectify. Mr X was concerned with the public expenditure of the scheme. The Ombudsman has no authority to question matters of public expenditure and the use of public money affecting taxpayers of a council area.
8. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of a council’s decision where there is no evidence of administrative fault causing injustice to the complainant. In this case the Council had the authority to design the proposed highway scheme and it had no duty to include Mr X’s suggestions in the final design.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman