Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to make a report public at least five clear days before a committee meeting. Mr X complained this prevented the committee meeting from examining the report and resulted in blue-badge holders being prevented from accessing the city centre. The Ombudsman discontinued our investigation of this complaint as further investigation of the Council would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow its constitution to make a report public at least five clear days before a committee meeting.
2. Mr X complained the committee could not, and did not, examine the report properly and agreed to the close city centre streets to vehicles with blue badges between 10:30am and 8pm.
3. Mr X says this prevents blue-badge holders from accessing the city centre and goes against equalities and human rights legislation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the information the Council provided.
7. Mr X provided comment on my draft decision which I considered before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council’s constitution says it will make copies of the agenda for a meeting and related reports open to the public at least five clear days before the meeting.

What happened

9. The Council devised the “My City Centre Strategic Vision” scheme and looked to complete consultation on this scheme given the significance of the policy.
10. The Council published agenda packs on 15 October 2021 in preparation for two scrutiny committee meetings on 25 October 2021. Both scrutiny committee meetings occurred on 25 October 2021 as planned.
11. The Council published an agenda pack on 29 October 2021 for a scrutiny committee meeting on 8 November 2021. The Council only published the agenda supplement pack (the report) on 5 November 2021. This did not give the scrutiny committee, or the public, five clear days before the meeting to review the document.
12. The scrutiny committee meeting occurred on 8 November 2021. The chair of the scrutiny committee completed the meeting despite the late submission of the report.
13. The Council published the agenda packs on 10 November 2021 for the executive meeting scheduled for 18 November 2021. The Council published the agenda pack for the executive meeting including the recommendations from all three scrutiny meetings.
14. The Council held the executive meeting on 18 November 2021. The executive meeting reached a decision on the scheme.
15. Mr X complained to the Council on 23 November 2021 about the failure of the Council to disclose the information before the scrutiny meeting on 8 November 2021 giving five clear working days.
16. The Council responded on 29 November 2021 and then again on 16 December 2021. The Council confirmed it failed to provide the information giving five clear working days and apologised for failing to meet this target. The Council said if the chair of the committee felt they needed more time to consider the report they could have deferred the decision.
17. Mr X complained to the chair of the scrutiny committee of 8 November 2021. The chair of the scrutiny committee responded to advise that he was unaware that going ahead with the scrutiny meeting would have prevented a complaint about the late publication of documents.
18. Mr X brought this matter back to the Council for a Stage 2 complaint response.
19. The Council provided the Stage 2 complaint response on 4 February 2022. The Council:
• Apologised for the late submission of the report.
• Said the chair of the scrutiny committee had discretion to accept the report as a late submission for consideration at the meeting and the committee did consider the report at the committee meeting.
• Said it would remind committee chairs about their ability to apply discretion.

Analysis

20. The Council has admitted it was at fault for failing to publish the report giving five clear days before the scrutiny meeting on 8 November 2021. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not change the Council’s acceptance of fault.
21. The scrutiny committee who met on 8 November 2021 held no decision-making powers about whether to approve the “My City Centre Strategic Vision” scheme. This scrutiny committee made advisory recommendations, as well as the other two scrutiny committees, but did not have powers to approve or reject the scheme.
22. The executive committee, who met on 18 November 2021, held the power to approve the scheme. When the executive committee meeting took place on 18 November 2021, the committee considered the full information available and not just the advisory recommendations from the scrutiny committee meeting held on 8 November 2021.
23. The executive committee considered the report published on 5 November 2021, which gave five full clear days for consideration before the meeting on 18 November 2021.
24. The executive committee made its decision considering the full information available. This included reports detailing Equalities Impact Assessments and legal advice about consideration of the scheme including its impact and matters about the Equalities Act and Human Rights Act.
25. While failure to publish the report giving five clear working days before the scrutiny committee meeting was fault, the Ombudsman could not find fault with the decision of the executive committee in these circumstances. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not present a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have discontinued my investigation as further investigation of this matter would not achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman