Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted on a Liveable Neighbourhood. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consult properly on a Liveable Neighbourhood (LN). He said it had also failed to tell residents about the introduction of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO). Mr X said this had caused congestion and pollution. He said the LN was a misuse taxpayer’s money. He wants the Council to accept it did not consult properly with the wider community and redesign the scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot investigate any complaint Mr X has that the introduction of the LN is a waste of taxpayer’s money. That is because decisions the Council’s makes about spending taxpayer’s money affects everyone who lives within its area. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about something that affects everyone in the Council’s area.
8. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council consulted on the LN. In the Council’s complaint response, it set out the steps it took to consult since 2020. That included publicity through social media and the press; direct contact with residents in the LN area and outside of it; and co-design workshops with residents who had previously asked to be kept-informed of co-design opportunities. The Council’s website also provided information about the consultation process and outcomes. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council consulted to justify our involvement.
9. The Council told residents and businesses with a 200-metre radius about the ETRO. It also published a press release setting out its reasons for introducing the ETRO. The Council took sufficient steps to information people about the ETRO. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Mr X can raise any objections he has about the ETRO to the Council as part of the consultation process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman