Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of parked vehicles blocking a stretch of cycle lane on his route to work, and that a Councillor did not reply to his correspondence. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor sufficient significant injustice caused to him by the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating. Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a Councillor is premature for us to investigate and it would not be unreasonable for him to make this complaint to the Council first.

The complaint

1. Mr X cycles to work. His route includes a road with a cycle lane. Mr X complains:
1. the Council has not taken sufficient action to prevent vehicles parking on the cycle lane on a particular section of the road;
2. a Councillor he contacted about the matter did not reply to him.
2. Mr X says the parked vehicles force him towards the middle of the road, putting him into conflict with other road users and at risk. He says near misses and drivers overtaking him too close causes him stress and anxiety. Mr X says that whatever action the Council has taken has not reduced the number of vehicles parked on the cycle lane. He was upset the Councillor did not reply to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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))

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council reviewed the location he referred to. The Council briefed its Civil Enforcement Team, asked it to increase patrols in the area and serve Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) on vehicles not complying with the parking restrictions. Officers asked Mr X to report any further instances of inappropriate parking on the cycle way to the Council, or to the police if the parking was obstructive or dangerous.
9. The Council considered the information Mr X provided about parking issues at the location concerned and visited. Officers responded with resources to seek greater compliance from drivers. They gathered relevant information about the location and the reported problems to make their professional judgement decision on what action to take. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X reports he has not noticed the problem parking decreasing and would want the Council to do more. But it is for officers to determine what priority the Council should give in response to any particular issue raised, within the context of all traffic and parking issues in its area which also need resourcing.
10. Even if there were fault by the Council here we will not investigate. The direct causes of Mr X not being able to use this part of the cycle lane are the actions of drivers. The key impact on Mr X is that he rides in traffic where the cycle lane is obstructed. But he has to do this on other parts of his route with no cycle lane. A further stretch where sharing the road with other vehicles is required is not sufficient additional injustice to warrant an investigation. The Council is not responsible for the actions of drivers which make Mr X feel unsafe when he joins the main carriageway where a cycle lane is not usable. We recognise Mr X is caused stress and anxiety by this part of his journey. But he has not been involved in any incidents there. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
11. Mr X has also complained to us about an elected Councillor not replying further to one of his contacts about the cycle lane. This issue did not form part of his complaint to the Council. We require people to give councils opportunity to respond to complaints before we can consider them. Any issues which have not first been put to a council are premature for us and we will not investigate them. If Mr X wishes to pursue this issue, he may wish to make a complaint about it to the Council first. As the complaint would be about an elected Councillor’s conduct and not the Council’s officers, he should direct any complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to put this complaint to the Council as it is a separate Councillor conduct issue with its own specific complaint process to follow.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• his complaint about the conduct of a Councillor is premature for us to investigate and it would not be unreasonable for him to put this matter to the Council first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman