Summary: Mr X complained about the Council failing to notify the public and the bus company about a road diversion which left him without the means of a return journey. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to inform a bus company and its users about a diversion which left him without transport some miles from his home. He says the Council, the police and the bus company have not accepted responsibility for the incident.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses to the complaint. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he was left without transport when busses were diverted due to a road closure which resulted in them missing some stops. He complained to the bus company who advised him that the Council is responsible for bus stop closures and diversions.
5. He complained to the Council and it says it received no applications to close the road or divert traffic in that area. The Council says it can only notify bus operators of diversions and closures if the highway closure order procedure is used. It advised that the road may have been closed by the Police in response to an incident and they have statutory powers to do this without the involvement of the highway or authority or any duty to notify highway users.
6. The Council could not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it has no record of any incident where the proper diversion process was involved.
7. The Local Government Act 1974 gives us discretion as to whether a complaint should be pursued and, in reaching that decision, a preliminary assessment is made. Account is taken of the degree of injustice sustained and whether the likelihood of maladministration can or cannot be excluded. Consideration is also given to whether there is any realistic chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome.
8. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or significant injustice arising which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman