Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to give him notice of a road closure. He also says the Council failed to properly deal with his complaint. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to give him notice of a road closure and it failed to respond to his complaint. He says this caused him inconvenience and distress, including a missed district nurse visit to his wife who had just had surgery and a missed parcel delivery.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the Act) gives councils powers to grant orders and notices for temporary road closures.
8. Section (14)(2)(a) of the Act says a traffic authority may at any time restrict or temporarily prohibit the use of a road where it is necessary or expedient to do so.
9. Councils may issue a Temporary Traffic Regulation Notice (TTRN) which impose a short-term closure or restriction. These are required for works that are urgent or unplanned.
10. Councils are not legally required to consult with residents for temporary restrictions.

What happened

11. On 5 November 2021 the Council agreed to urgent pre-patching resurfacing works on two lanes in the area where Mr X lives. The Council decided that resurfacing works planned between 15 November 2021 and 31 December 2021 would take place under a TTRN.
12. The TTRN was issued on 14 November 2021. The Council visited the site a few days before and marked out the proposed works.
13. The TTRN stated the whole road would be closed from 9.25am on 15 November 2021 until 6pm on 17 November 2021. It said that a diversion would be signed locally.
14. Resurfacing works started on 15 November 2021. The Council updated its website and local roads with details of the closure and diversions. It also told the emergency services.
15. On 16 November 2021 Mr X raised an enquiry via the Council’s website. He said the Council failed to notify residents in advance of the resurfacing works and access to his home had been completely blocked. Mr X said he had been unable to rearrange parcel deliveries and a district nurse could not attend to his wife. He said post, milk and food deliveries also could not take place.
16. A week later the Council closed the enquiry without responding to Mr X. It said it did so in error, as the roadworks ended on 17 November 2021. Mr X raised another enquiry the next day but did not receive a response.
17. On 6 December 2021 Mr X contacted the Council by telephone for an update however it did not provide him with any information. Mr X made a formal complaint in January 2022.
18. The Council apologised for the lengthy delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and for closing his initial enquiry. The Council provided Mr X with an explanation for the decision to close the roads. It acknowledged a lack of sufficient advance notice caused Mr X inconvenience and apologised for this.
19. Mr X remained dissatisfied and in February 2022 he asked for the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. Mr X did not receive a reply from the Council and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2022.
20. The Council issued a stage two complaint response to Mr X in August 2022. It said “Cabinet approves our final surface dressing plans for the upcoming financial year in March. However, we have to begin some pre-patching work beforehand to ensure we can complete the following year’s planned schemes (once approved). We cannot begin any pre-patching work until we receive our first clear indication which roads are likely to be in the next year’s resurfacing plans (in this case early November 2021). We highlight the worst areas of deterioration ahead of any pre-patching works. It would not be appropriate to notify residents of any possible works at this point, as not all the highlighted areas will ultimately be patched or resurfaced”.

Analysis

21. When a council considers a road closure it must satisfy itself it should stop traffic because of the works proposed. In this case the Council considered the works urgent because if the pre-patching was not completed then it could not have been included in the main schedule of works for the following year. That was a decision it was entitled to make. The crux of Mr X’s complaint is the Council failed to inform him and other residents about the road closure in advance.
22. It is clear from the information provided by the Council that while the works were agreed on 5 November 2021, the TTRN approving the schedule of works and road closures was not issued until 14 November 2021. The Council did provide signage on the site and markings on the road before this. However, it has explained these actions are part of its planning in advance of any funding being confirmed. I accept the Council could not notify residents at this stage of the process, as it was not in receipt of the TTRN.
23. Once the Council received the notice, it told the emergency services and updated its website but did not have time to inform residents because of the short timescales involved. I recognise the inconvenience Mr X experienced when the Council closed the road, however I have found no fault with the actions of the Council.
24. Mr X queried why Council closed the whole road at once rather than each side of the bridge in turn. The Council decided a full road closure was necessary to reduce the time on site and to provide a safe working environment during the works. It said closing the road in sections would have taken longer to arrange and would have meant it closed the road for longer. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
25. I understand Mr X feels the Council should have done more. However, I consider it met the requirements of the Act and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of decisions where there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached.
26. The Council was however at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s online query and the significant delay in responding to his stage two complaint. It took the Council six months to issue a final response. The delay caused Mr X frustration and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Ombudsman. I recommend a payment of £100 for the injustice caused. I acknowledge the Council has already apologised to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 by 17 January 2023 for the injustice caused by the delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation to address this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman