Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to give her notice of a road closure where she lives. We find the Council at fault, which left Miss X unable to travel to work. The Council has apologised to Miss X which is satisfactory to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to give her notice of a road closure.
2. As a result, Miss X could not access her car to go to work.
3. Miss X wants her loss of earnings compensated and the Council to ensure it is telling all affected residents about road closures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered Miss X’s complaint, the Council’s responses. I also discussed the complaint with Miss X.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, (a copy of which can be found on our website).
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In spring 2024, a contractor, working on behalf of the Council temporarily closed a road outside Miss X’s house for two days to carry out necessary work.
11. The day after the work was complete Miss X complained to the Council that the road was closed, without warning.
12. The Council apologised for the inconvenience caused and explained the service strives to keep roads open and maintain access to properties. However, it is not always possible to do so, due to safety concerns.
13. On the same day, Miss X escalated her complaint. She said she felt the real issue had not been acknowledged. She complained that she and her neighbours had not been notified about the road closure, and therefore could not make alternative arrangements to access their cars.
14. The Council provided its final response. The Council said notice signs about the road closure were erected on-site before work started and the road closure permit found online confirmed the entire road would be closed during the work. The Council accepted that letters should have been sent to all residents but were not. It explained this was an oversight by the contractor carrying out the works and apologised for any distress, inconvenience or frustration caused. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint.

My findings

15. When Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she said the road closure had resulted in loss of earnings. Miss X has since advised that she rescheduled her work for a later date, without loss of earnings.
16. The Council has accepted the contractors did not send letters to Miss X or her neighbours. This is fault. The apology provided to Miss X is sufficient to remedy her frustration in the circumstances. I have therefore not made any further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The remedy provided is suitable for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman