Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a road diversion route following an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and any injustice Mr X suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council chose an unsafe diversion route following an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order near his home. He says the increased traffic passing his home has made it noisy and unsafe when exiting his driveway. Mr X wants the Council to provide greater consideration to the proposed solution he suggested.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• 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.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council the diversion route it had chosen was not safe. Mr X identified an alternative route which he said was more suitable.
6. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns and thanked him for bringing the matter to its attention. It explained to Mr X, that diversion routes are determined using like for like roads, where the roads used are either in the same or higher classification. It highlighted concerns it had about the suitability of the route Mr X proposed, because of the different type of vehicles that would be using the route. Following its investigation, the Council told Mr X it had identified an alternative route it could propose should the road closure be required in future. Mr X raised concerns about the alternative proposal and said the Council’s protocol for diversions needs to be reviewed. But I am satisfied the Council considered and addressed the concerns Mr X raised and explained how it decided the appropriate road diversions. Therefore, we are unlikely to add anything further to its response.
7. 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. Mr X complained the diversion created more traffic noise near his home and made it unsafe for him to exit his driveway. Any injustice Mr X has suffered is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add anything further to the Council’s response and any injustice Mr X suffered is not significant enough for us to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman