Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highways management because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to respond to traffic offences he has reported along his road. He is also unhappy with the way the Council investigated his complaint, which he considered to take too long and to lack depth.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has complained about the response the Council has provided following his reports of traffic offences along his road. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
7. The Council has responded to Mr Y’s reports, increasing the number of patrols in the area, issuing numerous PCNs and where appropriate pursue penalties which are owed. It has also considered a caravan Mr Y says is in disrepair. It has carried out a site visit, considered the condition of the caravan and determined in its professional opinion that the caravan does not meet the criteria for removal action. It has also explained to Mr Y why it has not taken action relating to other issues he has raised.
8. While Mr Y may be disappointed with the response to his complaints, the Council has properly considered the issues using relevant criteria or taking appropriate action where it feels this is needed. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process used by the Council to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
9. Further our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. In this case, Mr Y has not suffered a serious loss, harm or distress, even if he feels strongly about the matter. Consequently, we will not investigate.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the investigation into his complaint, saying that in his view it lacked depth and took too long for him to receive a response. As we are not investigating the substantive issues, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman