Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has proceeded with the installation of a new traffic management system. This is primarily because there is insufficient evidence that the complainant has been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged faults, it is reasonable to expect him to use the alternative remedies which are available, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaint raises a number of concerns about the way the Council has proceeded with the installation of a new traffic management system. In particular, he says the Council:
• did not notify the public or allow the submission of objections/comments, contrary to the Communications Act 2003.
• did not notify or consult the public about the installation of systems above 3 meters high.
• did not notify or consult the public about the removal/alteration of a crossing, contrary to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1983.
• did not consult the Health and Safety Executive, contrary to the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
• did not have regard to the potential detriment to his wellbeing, contrary to the Public Sector (Social Value) Act 2012.
• has used banned components, contrary to the Communications Act 2003.
2. Mr X says he has been denied the opportunity to make an objection, and the Council’s actions have caused detriment to his health, safety, wellbeing, and security. Mr X also says the Council failed to properly follow its complaint process or deadlines when he complained about the above matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. With regard to the first two bullet points above, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered a significant personal injustice.
6. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. We also normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate associated concerns about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues being complained about.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
10. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. I appreciate Mr X has safety and security concerns about the traffic management system being implemented by the Council. But I consider there is insufficient evidence that he is caused a tangible and significant injustice by the system itself. It follows that any failure to notify, consult, or consider its duties when deciding to proceed with the scheme does not cause a significant injustice either. With reference paragraphs 4 (first two bullet points) and 5 above, we will therefore not investigate the complaint.
12. And if Mr X believes he has been caused some sort of personal injury by the system then, with reference to paragraph 6 above, I consider it reasonable to expect him to pursue a court remedy. This is because, unlike the courts, we cannot decide if an organisation has been negligent and cannot order a party to pay damages.
13. Similarly, if Mr X has data/information security concerns about the system, then it is reasonable to expect him to contact the ICO. This body has specific expertise in considering complaints about data protection, and is better placed than the Ombudsman to deal with such matters.
14. An investigation by the Ombudsman is also unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome, as we cannot direct the Council to suspend or alter the installation of the system.
15. As we are not proposing to investigate the substantive matters being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate, in isolation, the Council’s handling of Mr X’s associated complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate he has been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged fault;
• it is reasonable to expect him to pursue a court remedy in relation to any personal injury claim;
• it is reasonable to expect him to pursue any concerns about data protection with the ICO;
• an investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome; and,
• it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman