Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not directly consult residents in his area about its proposed clean air zone. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not consult him or other residents in his area on proposals to introduce a ‘clean air zone’ in central Birmingham.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives just outside Birmingham city centre. His most direct route to the M6 motorway is via the A38. He is unhappy about the Council’s consultation prior to deciding to implement a ‘clean air zone’ which means people with older, more polluting cars must pay to travel on the A38.
5. The Council has explained it consulted those within the zone but did not send letters to those outside it. Mr X says the people in his area regularly travel along the A38 and cannot afford to buy newer cars which will not incur the charge. He is also concerned about the impact of the zone on the traffic and pollution in the area.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council carried out consultation in a variety of ways and we would not expected it to write to everyone. There are lots of people who use the A38 on a daily basis but live outside the city and were not therefore directly consulted. But this is not fault. It was for the Council to decide how to carry out its consultation and it is unlikely we could say Mr X, or other local residents, would have come up with points not raised by anyone else which would have changed the decision to implement the scheme. We also cannot say the Council must put the scheme on hold to consult further as Mr X would like.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice or that we could achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman