Summary: Mr X complains the Council is not doing enough to ensure road safety in the area. We will not investigate this complaint. The primary responsibility for road safety in the area lays with another authority. Also, we do not consider the Council’s actions have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I shall call Mr X, complains the Council is not doing enough to ensure the safety of walkers and cyclists in the area.
2. He also complains the Council’s Chief Executive (CE) refuses to meet him to discuss his concerns.
3. The Council has failed to provide information that he has requested
4. Mr X wants an apology and a meeting with the CE.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (1), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

9. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X
• the Council’s responses to his complaint
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr X says in August he was involved in 2 incidents while cycling. A driver sped through a red light at a pedestrian crossing after Mr X and others had started to cross the road. This resulted in a near miss, when he and other pedestrians had to jump out of the path of the car.
12. The second incident occurred when a driver clipped the handlebars of Mr X’s bike. The driver stopped to apologise, and Mr X confirms he was not hurt and did not fall from his bicycle.
13. Mr X says these incidents prompted him to write to the CE to tell them about the incidents. And to ask what they were doing to ensure the safety of walkers and cyclists in the area. He believed a meeting would be the best approach.
14. After some months, the Council responded to Mr X. It apologised for the delay in response and confirmed that highway issues, including road safety is primarily the responsibility of the local County Council. It also confirmed that it is focussing its limited time and resources on meeting its statutory responsibilities during the Coronavirus Pandemic. Because of this it would not be arranging a meeting with the CE to discuss road safety concerns.

Assessment

15. Mr X say he pays his council tax to the Council and the CE is paid a significant salary for her role. Therefore, he should be able to meet the CE to discuss promoting road safety.
16. The area where Mr X lives is has two tier local government. This means responsibility for council services is split between the district council (the Council) and the county council. Mr X has been told the primary responsibility for all highway matters including road safety lays with the local county council. I consider that his main complaint about road safety is not an administrative function of the Council and therefore not a complaint which we can consider.
17. Mr X believes the safety of residents within the Council’s area should be prime importance to all publicly funded personnel working in the Council. We cannot consider matters which affect all or most of those who live or work in a Council’s area. I consider this point to fall under the restriction explained in paragraph 6 above and is outside our jurisdiction.
18. We investigate complaints of maladministration which have led directly to significant personal injustice. In his complaint forms Mr X says the injustice he has suffered is severe trauma because of a near miss accident and the Council does not care. The incidents described by Mr were both caused by the direct actions of the drivers, at least one of which appears to have committed a traffic offence. I do not consider the actions of the Council to have caused Mr X any significant injustice.
19. Mr X says the Council has failed to provide information in the format he has requested. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his freedom of information issue to the Information Commissioner if the Council has failed to resolve it. That is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body with the relevant statutory powers and expertise to deal with this matter.
20. Finally, Mr X wants a meeting with the CE. The Ombudsman cannot compel the Council to arrange such a meeting, therefore we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in paragraphs 15 to 20 above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman