Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing road closures in the complainant’s village for a marathon event. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council should not have agreed to roads in her village being cut off during a marathon event, as it has not properly considered the impact on residents and businesses. Miss X says that if she fell over due to her medical condition when the event is happening, then she would have to wait for someone to get into the village to help her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against Council decisions. Rather, we consider whether there was procedural or administrative 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Miss X might disagree with the Council’s decision to restrict access to her village during the marathon event and is concerned about the impact on the lives of residents and businesses.
7. But the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint unless there is sufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing the complainant a significant personal injustice. In my view, there is not enough evidence of fault causing Miss X a significant injustice, so the Ombudsman will not investigate her complaint.
8. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Emergency services and transport services were consulted and informed of the event by the event organiser;
• The Council has confirmed that access must be maintained for emergency services and residents during the event;
• The Council has provided Miss X with contact details for the event organiser;
• The Council contacted the event organiser about the alleged lack of consultation with residents. As a result, the organiser asked its distribution company for photographic evidence of delivery for future events;
• The Council provided Miss X with details of its digital interactive map, where she could set up notifications for future road works and events;
• The Council has asked the organizer to provide information to the Parish Council regarding the event for those who are unable to access the internet;
• The Ombudsman cannot investigate or remedy possible future injustice because the law does not allow us to consider something that has not yet happened.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman