Summary: A former councillor complained about the way the Council dealt with his concerns about the introduction of a cycleway and his proposal for an alternative route. But the Ombudsman cannot investigate this matter. This is because the complaint relates to the complainant’s role as a councillor rather than as a member of the public. In addition his complaint has been made late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s inadequate response to concerns he raised during his time as a councillor about a proposal for a new cycleway. Mr X also complained that the Council had failed to justify its opposition to an alternative route for the cycleway which he put forward.

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. But the Local Government Act 1974 imposes certain restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. In particular, we can only accept complaints from members of the public or their authorised representatives. This means we cannot accept complaints from councillors complaining about something relating to their position as a councillor. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A, as amended)
4. In addition, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint, and his comments in response to a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Around the year 2000 the Council put forward proposals to construct a cycleway across some land in its area.
7. At the time Mr X was a councillor representing a neighbouring ward. When he became aware of the proposed cycleway Mr X raised concerns about the safety of the route for his constituents, as this entailed having to use one or the other of two level crossings over a busy railway line.
8. Mr X also proposed an alternative route for the cycleway avoiding the level crossings, which he considered would be much safer. However Council officers rejected his alternative scheme.
9. Mr X corresponded with officers, fellow councillors and other interested parties about this matter over the following few years. Work nevertheless started on the Council’s chosen route for the cycleway in 2004 and was completed in 2006.
10. But Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision-making and he continued to question the reasons it had given for rejecting his alternative route.

Analysis

11. However I do not see that we can investigate Mr X’s complaint about this matter.
12. In particular this is because the law says complaints to us may only be made by a member of the public, or someone representing a member of the public, who claims to have suffered injustice as a consequence of fault by an authority.
13. But councillors are not counted as members of the public where their only claimed injustice relates to their position as a councillor. I consider that Mr X’s complaint falls into this category because it concerns the way he was treated in his role as a councillor.
14. In addition, I consider we should still not pursue Mr X’s complaint even if this restriction did not apply in his case. This is because it he has made his complaint late.
15. As I understand it, the events Mr X complains about took place between 2000 and 2007. On that basis I suggest Mr X has been aware of the issues in his case for at least 12 years before complaining to us, and I see no reason why he could not have come to us much sooner about the matters in question.
16. As a result I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction to investigate late complaints, which I refer to in paragraph 4, also applies in Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Final Decision

17. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to his concerns regarding the construction of a cycleway. This is because he is complaining about what happened in his role as a councillor rather than as a member of the public. In addition, Mr X’s complaint has been made late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman