Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about temporary road closures during a half-marathon. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that road closures during a half-marathon caused traffic disruption and made him late for a hospital appointment. Mr X says the Council should re-route the event.

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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complains that road closures during a half-marathon meant he was late for a hospital appointment. He says the fastest route to the hospital was closed and a journey that usually takes about 15 minutes took about an hour. Mr X says the closures could cause a death if someone became seriously ill.
5. In response to his complaint the Council apologised for the inconvenience. It explained it reviews applications for road closures and tries to minimise disruption. It referred to one road being closed for about six hours and another being closed for less than half an hour. It said it must divert traffic along roads which have the same clarification as the affected road and that emergency vehicles on blue lights can use the closed roads. The Council said it lifts closures as soon as possible and explained it must balance the disruption caused with the benefits of events for the wider community.
6. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The law permits councils to close roads for events and says each council must have due regard to the impact; the law does not specify exactly how this should be done. In this case the Council considered the impact and advised it tries to minimise disruption and lift the closures as soon as possible. In addition, it ensured that emergency access was maintained.
7. I appreciate Mr X was inconvenienced and is concerned people could be put at risk of harm. But, the event is only once a year and the road closures were only for a few hours. Further, Mr X was able to get to the hospital and on any given day it is possible a journey will be delayed due to incidents such as accidents or break-downs. The Council considers the impact but is restricted to where it can route the official diversion; but, it could never plan a route which avoided all possible inconvenience. I acknowledge Mr X’s concern but the impact of an annual event is not one which requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman