Summary: There is no fault by the Council on recent complaints about a major highway scheme in Mr X’s area. The consultation and decision making on the scheme took place in 2015 and 2017, and so there is insufficient information available to investigate these matters now. The Council has noted Mr X’s current concerns and has said that they may be included in future highway schemes if resources allow.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X complains the Council has failed to supply evidence that it consulted residents (and adequately considered any responses) on changes that affect traffic on his road.
2. Mr X says the Council has failed to show that it considered the extra impact on elderly and disabled residents when making decisions on changes to his road.
3. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to take action over a junction it has accepted is unsafe for pedestrians due to the changes to local roads.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated events from December 2019 onwards. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
9. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
10. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

2015 consultation

11. Mr X lives in a block of flats on a road. The Council carried out a consultation on changes to the local road system in 2015. This was a large consultation on a regeneration report for the area.
12. I have seen a copy of the report so the Council did carry out a public consultation then. The Council has not kept copies of letters sent out to individual residents so there is no way to investigate whether Mr X got a letter.

2017 decision to go ahead with the regeneration scheme

13. The Council has information on the decision in 2017 to go ahead with the scheme is on its website. Mr X says the Council has failed to show that it considered the extra impact on elderly and disabled residents when making decisions on changes to his road.
14. Mr X has said the changes mean more large vehicles use his road because they can no longer use the wider road. So because his road is narrow, lorries inch forward and back, mounting the pavement and blocking the street for pedestrians. This is difficult for pedestrians with mobility disabilities. He also complains that it costs him more in taxi fares as they have to travel further and that he has to walk further to get a black cab.
15. I can see the reports on the 2017 decision refer to the Equality Act and to the needs of the disabled. Unfortunately, due to the time that has elapsed I cannot find out whether the Council responded to the exact issues Mr X raised in the 2017 decision making process. There is no way, now, to investigate whether the Council considered the specific issues raised by Mr X in 2017.

Changes to Junction in 2019

16. The Council carried out the road scheme in 2019. Mr X made an official complaint about the changes to a specific junction. In response the Council said to Mr X ‘your comments on the junction are acknowledged and that the junction could be improved. While no immediate funding is available, the junction would be included as a potential location for road safely improvements’.
17. In response to Mr X’s official complaint the Council also said that ‘northbound traffic (on Mr X’s road) had been identified by the transport planning department as an area where potential follow-up interventions are necessary. However, due to main roads in the area that are more direct and accessible officers estimate that most traffic will stay on the main roads’.
18. In response to my enquiries the Council has said ‘we are working as part of a Masterplan to further improve the local walking environment, including the junction mentioned by Mr X’. The Council has said ‘we have not identified an urgent safety issue at this junction. This request has been logged for consideration for inclusion in the transport programme when resources allow and subject to prioritisation’.
19. Councils aren’t able to do all desirable road changes in their area immediately, so a delay isn’t necessarily fault. However, councils should have a proper prioritisation system, considering the impact/seriousness of each problem, which should include considering the impact on disabled people. Here, the problems appear to have arisen directly from changes Council made to a nearby road. So, I would expect the Council to explain (and provide evidence of) how it has considered the problems Mr X has outlined and how it reached any decisions about prioritising.
20. I do not consider there has been fault by the Council. However, I do consider it has not fully explained to Mr X how his requests have been assessed and prioritised. I have asked the Council to write to Mr X to explain how it assesses requests for highway improvement and how it decides which requests will be included in the transport programme. At least, once Mr X has this information he will be informed about how likely it is the changes will be carried out and when any consultation occurs.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is not upheld, as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council on the matters I am able to investigate.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

22. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) I have not exercised discretion to investigate events that happened before December 2019 due to the lack of information available.
23. The 2015 consultation occurred 7 years ago. It is clear from the consultation report that the Council consulted the public on the scheme. However, the Council has said it has not kept records of which individual residents were written to and so it is too long ago for us to find out whether or not Mr X got a letter. The events in 2015 are simply too long ago for us to investigate due to a lack of records on the consultation or decision making process.
24. The decision on the scheme was made in 2017, 5 years ago. It is clear from the papers available on the internet that the Council referred to its duties under the Equality Act and the needs of the disabled. But, the decision taken in 2017 was too long ago for the Ombudsman to investigate whether the Council considered the specific issues Mr X has referred to in his complaint. The scheme was a large regeneration project and there is simply not enough detail available now from the published papers to reach a view.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman