Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the changes the Council has made to the road layout in the City Centre. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the changes the Council has made to the road layout in the City Centre. He says the signage and the information on the Council’s website were confusing. He also says the telephone support for drivers about the changes was not helpful which caused him significant worry.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• if we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint and the Council’s responses to him. I also considered the information about the changes on the Council’s website.
4. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council introduced new city centre bus lanes and ‘bus gates’ (short bus lanes which restrict which types of vehicle can use certain junctions) in early August 2020. The Council is trialling the changes for 12-18 months. At the time of Mr X’s complaint, the Council is not enforcing breaches of the lane restrictions.
6. In mid-August, Mr X drove into the city centre at night. He had not driven into the city centre in many months and was not aware of the changes.
7. Mr X says he unintentionally used several ‘bus gates’ during his journey. He says the signage was not clear.
8. Mr X was very concerned that he might have broken traffic rules so he checked the Council’s website for information. He says the information was confusing and inconsistent, so he couldn’t work out if he had broken the rules.
9. Mr X called the Council the following morning and had to wait for over 20 minutes for his call to be answered, despite being told he was first in the queue. The call handler could not tell Mr X if he had broken the rules because another team would need to check this. He told Mr X this could take several days.
10. Mr X complained to the Council about the information, signage and lack of telephone support.
11. The Council apologised for the distress Mr X had experienced. It also explained the helpline staff could not confirm whether individual journeys had breached the rules, as this was the responsibility of a more specialist team. The Council says the signage it installed complies with applicable rules. It offered to arrange for a someone to phone Mr X to explain the changes in more detail
12. At first, the Council did not accept the information on its website was inconsistent. However, it later accepted this and made changes to the information.
13. Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s apology and wants compensation for the 6 hours he spent trying to understand the information and complaining to the Council.

Analysis

14. The Council accepts the information on its website was inconsistent and that there was a delay in answering Mr X’s call. It has sincerely apologised to Mr X for any distress he experienced. It has also updated the information on its website.
15. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation that, while its call handlers can provide information about the changes, a specialist team must confirm breaches of the rules because of the possible implications.
16. I appreciate Mr X was very worried about whether he had broken the traffic rules and the confusing information caused him distress. I also acknowledge that Mr X needed to spend longer than should have been necessary trying to find out if he had broken the rules.
17. However, I consider the Council’s apology to Mr X to be a suitable remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused by the confusing information. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman