Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road closure signage. This is because another body is better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to correctly sign a road closure to indicate that his business was open as usual. He says this has impacted his business financially. Mr Y is also unhappy about how the Council dealt with his complaint, which caused him frustration.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council closed the road Mr Y’s business is on for a week in June 2021 to enable it to carry out drainage works. It placed a sign to show the road was closed, but the sign did not show that Mr Y’s business remained open. Mr Y says this caused him a loss of profits of approximately £1,000.
6. Mr Y complained to the council in June. The Council apologised for the inconvenience, explaining the road closure had been necessary and said it had put up signs warning of the closure two weeks before it was implemented.
7. Mr Y asked the Council to consider his complaint further in August. The Council responded, denying fault in October. Mr Y then approached us in October.

Analysis

8. Mr Y’s injustice largely relates to the losses Mr Y says the road closure sign caused to his business. Mr Y considers the Council, and the lack of detail it had on its signage, responsible for the loss of his profits, which he says amounted to approximately £1,000. Mr Y may be able to make a claim through his business insurance for this loss of profits. Alternatively, he may be able to make a claim on the Council’s own insurance if he considers them liable for these losses.
9. If the Council disputes liability for the losses Mr Y says he has suffered, Mr Y’s business insurer or Mr Y himself, may consider pursuing the claim through the courts. The courts can decide who is liable for the losses and if necessary, award damages.
10. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for business losses, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his claim through either his business insurer or the courts. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive part of this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because another body is better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman