Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s plans to place a post and a speed limit sign outside his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. There is also another body better placed to consider part of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s initial plan to place a post and a speed limit sign outside his property. He also complained how the Council handled his complaint and responded to his request for internal data related to his complaint. He said it caused him distress and frustration. As part of his desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to:
• apologise to him and provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused;
• remove the post and sign;
• provide him with his data request in full; and
• address its failings in relation to its poor complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In early 2025, Mr X said he noticed a contractor working for the Council had painted a mark outside his property and told him the Council had planned to position a post and a speed limit sign there.
6. Mr X contacted the Council as he was unhappy with its plans. He said the post and sign would affect the view from his window. Mr X then complained to the Council. Whilst the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint, it decided to move the position of the post and sign to another location near his home. The Council later installed the post and sign. Mr X told us although he would like the Council to completely remove the post and sign, it is in a better location than it would have been had the Council placed it in the initial location.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Although the Council had initially planned to place the post and sign in front of Mr X’s property which upset Mr X, it did not do so. The injustice is also not significant enough to warrant an investigation as Mr X has said the location of the post and sign is in a better location.
8. Mr X said he was unhappy with how the Council handled his complaint. For example, he said the Council was not responsive to his concerns, delayed responding to his complaint and lied to him in its response. Mr X said he requested the Council to provide him with its internal data via a subject access request and a freedom of information request in relation to how it investigated his complaint. Mr X said the Council delayed responding to his request and he was unhappy with the data it had provided as it was heavily redacted.
9. We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint as we are not investigating the substantive matter. It would not be a good use of public money to do so. Furthermore, it is more appropriate for Mr X to take his concerns about how the Council handled his data requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO has the power to investigate matters regarding subject access requests as well as freedom of information requests.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. There is also another body better placed to consider part of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman