Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that it will not provide a loading bay outside his business premises. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused his request to provide a loading bay outside his business premises. He says the current delivery arrangements are disruptive and cause inconvenience and health and safety risks for delivery staff and the public. He wants the Council to agree to his request for a loading bay outside his premises or provide a viable alternative.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council said it had considered his request to create a loading bay outside his business premises, but could not agree to amend the existing layout at this time. It explained the reasons for its decision which included:
• His business premises has been located there for many years with the existing layout in place.
• There had been no expressed concerns about deliveries in the area or any indication of any incidents or issues previously.
• The pavement is shared use between pedestrians and cyclists and there is an expectation of increased use by cyclists over time.
• The current layout serves a wider function to position and manage the traffic on approach to a nearby roundabout.
7. It said it may be possible to consider provision of a loading bay in a different location in the future, but this would need to be part of wider decision making by Council members as part of wider priorities for the area.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. Councils have discretion to decide whether to implement amendments to the highways in their area. The Council has appropriately considered Mr X’s request but decided it will not agree to it. It has advised Mr X of the reasons for its decision.
9. Mr X disagrees with the decision but there is no requirement for a council to implement every resident request. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision and so we cannot question the decision made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman