Summary: Mr X complained about the Council closing a main road in his area for repairs which involved the inconvenience of a 27-mile diversion. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a main road in his area being closed for resurfacing and involving a long detour. He says that only half of the dual carriageway was repaired and the complete closure and diversion were unnecessary and inconvenient.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(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 been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says a main road in his area was closed for seven days so that one side of it could be resurfaced. He says it was not necessary to close the whole carriageway and that the Council should have introduced a contra-flow system instead of a lengthy diversion of over 20 miles.
6. The Council says that it had to close the whole of the carriageway to ensure the safety of the workforce operating heavy plant. the diversion had to be suitable for all vehicles, including HGV’s and this required a lengthy alternative route. The Council said that shorter routes may have been available for local traffic, but it could not sign these routes as being suitable for all traffic.
7. The Council is the highway authority, and it has powers to close and divert highways for repair and other reasons. The Council’s highways officers considered the safety of the workforce as paramount and the diversion route was chosen for suitability of all traffic.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions where there was no fault in the process.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman