Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his objection to a Traffic Regulation Order. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his objection to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). He says the Council failed to respond to his information request before the consultation deadline, which meant he was unable to submit a meaningful objection. He also complains about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not responded to his information request before the TRO consultation deadline. It said the Council had already provided Mr X with an explanation and an apology for this. It said despite its delay responding to his request, Mr X had submitted his objection to the TRO before the consultation deadline, which it had received. It said it would ensure his objection and the points raised in earlier correspondence and within his information request were considered as part of the Council’s decision making about the TRO. It said he would also be invited to a meeting where he could raise his concerns directly with the Council, before it reached a decision.
6. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has agreed to consider Mr X’s objections including any additional points her has raised in correspondence as part of its decision making, so the delay responding to his request before the TRO consultation deadline has not caused a significant injustice. The Council has also apologised to Mr X and agreed to remind its officers to set up out of office with an alternative contact on their emails, when going on leave. This is an appropriate response to remedy any frustration or distress cause by the delay and to prevent recurrence of the fault. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
7. Mr X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request (SAR). We will not investigate this. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK regulator for data protection and information rights. It is better placed to consider any complaint about this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome. The ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman