Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the data used to inform a public consultation. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mispresented data. This data was presented as part of the public consultation on a proposed temporary congestion charge scheme. Mr X says the Council’s use of data has caused him to lose confidence in the Council’s decision making.
2. Mr X also complains about delays in the Council’s complaints handling process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence he has suffered a significant injustice. The Council held a public consultation on the proposed congestion charge before deciding to introduce it. Whilst the Council can use the public consultation to inform its decision, it is not bound by its results. Whether the Council used the most appropriate datasets would not have made significant difference.
8. The Council decided to proceed with the congestion charge scheme, and we have seen no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman