Summary: Ms X complains that the Council delayed in authorising a road closure to enable her to have water and sewage connections installed at her new property. She also says the Council delayed in responding to her correspondence and sent emails to her work address despite being asked not to do so. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the road closure application. But it was at fault in sending an email to Ms X’s work email address. The Council has provided an adequate remedy for any injustice caused by this.

The complaint

1. Ms X built a bungalow following a serious accident affecting her mobility. She needed to move into the property urgently and complains that the Council delayed in authorising a road closure to enable her to have water and sewage connections installed. As a result, completion of the build was delayed resulting in her suffering pain, distress and inconvenience. She was also put to additional expense as a result.
2. Ms X also complains that the Council delayed in responding to her correspondence about the matter and sent emails to her work email address despite being asked not to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Ms X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA 1991) sets out conditions relating to temporary road closure applications.
7. The NRSWA 1991: Code of Practice for the Coordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters (‘the Code’) sets out the minimum notice periods for major works. It says all planned works requiring TTROs are classified as major works. The minimum notice period for such works is three months. The Council’s requirement of 12 weeks’ notice accords with this.

Key facts

8. Ms X had a serious fall downstairs in her house which affected her mobility. She decided to convert an outbuilding on her land into a bungalow. The gas and electricity suppliers obtained a road closure order to install services in January 2020 but there was not enough time to install fresh water and wastewater connections so a further road closure was needed.
9. On 30 December 2019 Ms X applied by email for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) to allow her to apply for an emergency road closure. She stated on the form that this was to enable freshwater and wastewater connections to be established.
10. The Council’s coordinator responded asking further questions because applications are normally made by the utility provider and not the homeowner. The Council says the application was not complete and provided a less than ideal diversion route request. The coordinator spoke to Ms X who said she had been waiting for the new connections and wanted them progressed quickly. The coordinator explained the road closure process and that new connections do not normally fall under emergency criteria. He also asked why Ms X was applying instead of the water company.
11. The water company submitted a permit request on 22 January 2020 for works to be carried out on 25/26 April but did not apply for a TTRO to close the road. The Council responded to the permit application on 3 February 2020 stating that it had not received the closure application and asked the company to provide one.
12. On 21 February 2020, the Council had still not received the closure application from the water company and so refused the permit request in line with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which provides a notification period of 12 weeks for such works.
13. On 4 March 2020 the water company submitted a further permit request together with the required road closure application proposing a date of 30/31 May 2020. The Council approved the request.
14. On 9 March 2020 Ms X wrote to the Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste (‘Officer A’). She explained that, following a serious fall downstairs, she was converting an outbuilding into a bungalow. She said the highways department had refused the request for a road closure on 25 and 26 April resulting in delay to the building works and she wanted to appeal the decision.
15. On 19 March 2020 Ms X sent a further letter to the Council. She asked it to allow the requested road closure on 25 and 26 April 2020. She said she had explained her urgent personal circumstances and the need to complete the building work.
16. On 25 March 2020 Officer A’s PA sent an email to Ms X requesting details of the road closure. Ms X replied the same day providing further details and asking for the road closure to be brought forward to 25/26 April arguing that, because of the national lockdown, the roads were almost empty. However, the PA’s email had been sent from a ‘do not reply’ email address and Mrs X’s response was not received by the Council.
17. On 24 April 2020 Ms X wrote to Officer A again stating she had not received a formal acknowledgement of her complaint but only an email from his PA. Ms X wrote to the Council again on 27 April. Officer A’s PA responded apologising that she had not received Ms X’s reply to her email of 25 March. She confirmed Officer A would investigate her concerns and respond within 20 days but, because of COVID-19, response times may vary due to the prioritisation of works.
18. Officer A responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage 1 of the Council’s complaints procedure on 5 June 2020. He did not uphold her complaint explaining the process must be followed so that local residents, highway users and any services affected by the road closure were informed and given an opportunity to make alternative arrangements.
19. Ms X responded on 16 June 2020 saying, “Going forward, please do not use the email address as per your email to me dated 5th June. All correspondence should be by post”.
20. On 29 July 2020 Officer Y’s PA sent an email to Ms X’s work email address apologising for the delay in responding and explaining that the Council’s offices were not currently open to workers and access was limited for the collection of post because of the COVID-19 restrictions. She said, “I note that you wish to be responded to via post and not email, but unfortunately due to COVID-19 restrictions and Government guidelines, this has not been possible”. She told Ms X her complaint would be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints procedure and she would receive a response within 20 working days.
21. Ms X replied, “I have specifically requested that Highways do not use this email for data protection reasons which you have now breached”.
22. On 21 September 2020 the Council responded to Ms X’s stage 2 complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the procedure. But explained that, at the time, staff had limited access to buildings because of COVID-19 and the collection and sending of post had been irregular. Also explained that the highways team had been prioritising keeping roads safe.

Analysis

Road closure

23. Ms X says the Council delayed in agreeing the road closure despite her explaining the urgent reasons for it. She says this caused her anxiety and stress and she incurred additional building costs because of the delay.
24. The Council has explained that a new connection is not normally classed as an emergency. It should instead be planned to give road users as much notice as possible of the road closure. The Council’s requirement of 12 weeks’ notice accords with the notice period set out in the Code.
25. The water company submitted a permit request on 22 January 2020 for the works to be carried out and 25/26 April but did not apply for the road closure. This is a separate application process which the company should be aware of. The onus was on the water company to inform the Council that the works were urgent and to follow the proper process and submit all necessary applications. The Council notified the water company on 3 February 2020 that it had not yet received their road closure application. When the company still did not provide it, the Council had no option but to refuse the permit request as the NSRWA 1991 requires applications to be processed within one month. In these circumstances, I find the Council was not at fault in refusing the permit request.
26. The water company submitted a further permit request in March 2020 together with the required road closure application for works to be completed on 30/31 May 2020. The Council agreed this request.
27. The water company’s application did not state that this was an urgent road closure. The Council says if the water company had proposed an emergency closure at any time during the process, it would have accepted this as the water company is responsible for categorising the classification of works.
28. The Council says it was unaware of Ms X’s email of 25 March 2020 where she explained the urgency of the works. This email was not received because Ms X was responding to a ‘do not reply’ email. Any postal correspondence received during the lockdown was not processed until much later because of Government restrictions requiring officers to work from home. The highways team says it only became aware of Ms X’s correspondence at the end of April 2020 by which time the road closure had already been planned for the end of May.
29. I find no fault in the way the Council managed the permit application process.

Response to Ms X’s correspondence

30. Ms X complained to the Council on 19 March 2020. She received no response apart from an email from Officer A’s PA asking her to confirm the location of the road. Ms X responded but received no reply.
31. The Council has explained that, because of an error within its customer management system, the PA’s email was sent from a ‘do not reply’ email address. As a result, the Council did not receive Ms X’s response. The Council received the correspondence when Ms X emailed copies of the letters on 27 April. An acknowledgement was sent to Ms X on 28 April 2020 by Officer A’s PA.
32. The Council accepts its responses to Ms X’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints were outside its usual 20 working day deadline but at the time it was prioritising urgent work. There was a statement on the Council’s website which explained it had declared a major event because of COVID-19 and as a result needed to prioritise urgent works meaning that response times would be delayed.
33. I find no fault in the Councils delay in responding to Ms X’s correspondence given the situation with COVID-19. The Council was entitled to prioritise work based on urgency during this period. Customers were informed of the Council’s approach to prioritising work on its website.

Use of Ms X’s work email address

34. Ms X says the Council sent an email to her work email address despite being requested not to do so.
35. Ms X asked the Council to stop using her work email address on 16 June 2020 and correspond by post instead.
36. The Council has explained Officer Y’s PA sent an email to Ms X out of courtesy to acknowledge receipt of her letter and explain that it had not been possible to contact her by post as requested because the offices were currently closed to staff with limited access for collection of post.
37. At stage 2 the Council upheld this aspect of Ms X’s complaint and apologised. It confirmed the Council had reviewed its procedures regarding the recording of customers’ requests about how it uses their personal data and made improvements to ensure this did not happen again. This included collecting post on a more regular basis whilst keeping in line with Government guidance. In addition, staff were reminded of the need to ensure safe handling of personal information.
38. I am satisfied the Council’s apology together with the review of its procedures represents an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused to Ms X by sending an email to her work address. If Ms X remains dissatisfied, it is open to her to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I uphold Ms X’s complaint that the Council sent an email to her work email address despite being asked not to do so.
40. I do not uphold the remainder of Ms X’s complaints.
41. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman