Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation process and a decision to introduce waiting time restrictions on streets near her home. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision to introduce the restrictions and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s consultation process and its decision to introduce waiting time restrictions on streets near her home. She says the Council mishandled the process, which denied her the opportunity to verbally present her petition to decision makers and caused distress and loss of trust. She wants the Council to apologise, reconsider its decision and review its petition procedures.

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:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint responses, the Council acknowledged it had provided her with incorrect information regarding the opportunity to verbally present a petition to the decision-making committee. It apologised to her for this. It said it no longer operated area committees, so petition leaders now received a written response from the relevant cabinet member or officer instead. It said it had considered her petition as part of its decision-making and provided her with a written response.
7. It said the decision to introduce waiting time restrictions near her home was part of a borough-wide programme to prevent illegal or obstructive parking near junctions. It said this was to improve safety and ensure clear lines of sight for road users and pedestrians.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised to Ms X for providing incorrect information regarding its petition process. Although I accept the incorrect information caused her some frustration, the apology is a suitable remedy for the distress caused. An investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council considered her petition as part of its decision making, so the lost opportunity to verbally present the petition has not caused a significant injustice. The Council has explained its reasoning for the decision to Ms X. Although I accept Ms X does not agree with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached the decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman