Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to the complainants request to install a zebra crossing close to their home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Some of the issues complained about also either happened too long ago or there are other bodies better placed to consider them.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I will call Mr & Mrs C, complains about how the Council responded to their requests to implement a zebra crossing in 2017 and again in 2020. Mr & Mrs C say the Council’s failure to act is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and has caused them both distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr & Mrs C and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs C has a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, and she relies upon the use of a mobility scooter.
10. In 2015, Mr C asked the Council to install a zebra crossing on a road close to his home. The Council refused his request but did install dropped kerbs. I will not investigate Mr & Mrs C’s complaint about this decision because it happened too long ago, and I see no reason why they could not have complained about this at the time.
11. In August 2020 Mr C noticed that work was underway to paint road markings in the area. He again asked the Council to install a zebra crossing in the same location.
12. The Council told Mr C that it had added his request to a list which contains over 200 other requests for crossings made by residents. The Council said it would assess Mr C’s request in the summer months when the road is expected to be busier.
13. I will not investigate how the Council responded to Mr C’s request for a zebra crossing in 2020, because I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. It clearly explained to Mr C how his request will be assessed and explained its reasons why the assessment wouldn’t been carried out sooner.
14. Mr & Mrs C say the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010 by not implementing the crossing. In responding to Mr C’s complaint, the Council sought advice from its equalities manager and conclude that there was no significant detriment suffered by Mrs C as there are other suitable crossing points nearby, but further consideration would be given to the Act when it carried out its full assessment.
15. I will not investigate this element of Mr & Mrs C’s complaint, because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has demonstrated that it took into account its duties under the Equality Act. If Mr C feels a breach has taken place it is reasonable for him to challenge this in the Country Court. Only a court can determine if a body has unlawfully discriminated against person.
16. Mr & Mrs C also complain about how the Council responded to their Freedom of Information request. We will not investigate it is reasonable to expect them to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
17. Mr & Mrs C complain about how the Council handled its complaints process. They say it was inappropriate for the Officer who responded to do so. However, we do not generally investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
18. Finally, Mr & Mrs C complain that the Council reported Mr C to the police after it believed Mr C had committed a criminal offence relating to his request for a crossing, leading to him receiving a community resolution order and making a payment to the Council.
19. I will not investigate this final element of Mr C’s complaint. It is unlikely any investigation that the Council was at fault for reporting a criminal offence to the police, and the decision to issue a community resolution order was made by the police and not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, some elements happened too long ago and there are other bodies better placed to investigate other elements of their complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman