Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about road closures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approves multiple road closures each year on the street where he lives to facilitate a street market. He says the Council has not consulted affected residents before approving the closures. As a result, he is unable to access his property by vehicle during the events, causing inconvenience and disruption. Mr X says the Council should follow a proper consultation process before approving future closures and consider measures to reduce the impact on residents. This could include providing suitable parking arrangements close to their homes or other practical solutions to help mitigate the impact of market days.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained to Mr X that event organisers were responsible for consulting residents about the street market and associated road closures. It said it was satisfied the necessary consultation, and application requirements had been met. The Council also explained the applications complied with the statutory requirements and that repeat events had been referred to the Secretary of State where required.
7. Mr X complained he cannot access his property using his vehicle during these road closures. The Council explained under section 16A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 it is a requirement that pedestrian not vehicular access is maintained, and this is what has occurred. The Council considered Mr X's concerns, recognised the inconvenience caused and said it would raise these with the event organisers for consideration.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. Although Mr X disagrees with how the Council made its decision to approve the road closures. The Council explained its role in approving the road closures and the relevant processes it followed. It considered the concerns Mr X raised and explained the reasons for its decision. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman