Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street furniture because we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to act transparently about a cycle hangar installation on his street and has failed to put in enough cycle hangars to meet demand in his area. He is also unhappy with the way the Council responded to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says the road he lives on is busy and he has been unable to get off the waiting list for a hangar space for his bike for a long time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has told us that he is hoping for the outcome of our investigation to be for the Council to commit to building enough hangars for bikes to meet demands with clear deadlines published for the completion of the hangars.
7. Our role is to try to put people back in the position they would have been in, had the alleged fault not occurred. We do not have the power to recommend the Council agree to build more hangars or to publish timescales of when it will do this. Further, this action would not change the position Mr Y is in or would have been in had any fault occurred.
8. Mr Y has now, through the complaints process received a detailed explanation of where hangars have been added to the street scene and the Council’s waiting list for a space within the hangars. As he has received this explanation, even though he may be unhappy with the outcome, there is no further worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. As we cannot achieve either a worthwhile outcome or the outcome Mr Y has sought, we will not investigate.
9. Mr Y has also complaint about how the Council responded to his complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s handling or response to the complaint and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman