Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to create a low traffic neighbourhood where the complainant lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to introduce the scheme, we could not achieve the main outcome the complainant is seeking, and we will not look at the Council’s handling of the subsequent complaint process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council trialling a low-traffic neighbourhood scheme where she lives. She says there was inadequate consultation and residents have been ignored. Miss X also says her associated complaint has not been fully addressed.
2. Miss X says the scheme makes her anxious about leaving her local area, as well; as feeling helpless, powerless and isolated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. In relation to the first bullet point, we can 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. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Miss X, which included her complaint correspondence with the Council.
• information about the implementation of the scheme, available on the Council’s webpages.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to introduce the scheme.
8. But the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body or overrule Council decisions. So, we cannot achieve the main outcome Miss X is seeking, as we cannot direct the Council to halt the scheme.
9. We also do not ask whether the Council could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it has done. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it has made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, in the way it progressed the implementation of the scheme, to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that it followed the statutory consultation process for a Traffic Regulation Order, and its website provides further detailed information about: the other steps it took to consult/engage with residents and stakeholders (including the emergency services and businesses); the Equality Impact Assessment it prepared; the exemptions available to the access restrictions; the future monitoring of the scheme; and a future round of consultation following the 6-month trial period.
11. And with reference to paragraph 5 above, as we are not investigating the main issues at the heart of the complaint, it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to implement the scheme, we could not achieve the outcome she is seeking, and it would not be a good use of resources to look at the Council’s handling of the complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman