Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered a road closure. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and a claim for damage to property is best considered by the courts.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• changed its decision to close a road, despite having previously assured residents it would do so and road closure being a condition of planning permission;
• failed to provide evidence that led to its original decision; and
• did not consider all relevant factors originally, as the need to change bus routes was brought up as a new reason when the decision changed.
2. Mrs X says large trucks passing through on the road in question cause cracks in the walls of her property, and she is also concerned for children’s safety. She wants the Council to close the road as originally agreed.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X says the Council has decided to no longer close a road next to a new development near her property, despite having agreed to do so as a planning condition.
8. The evidence available shows the Council has not made any such decision. At the time of Mrs X’s complaint, the Council was still considering options such as traffic calming measures. It explained that should it propose not to continue with the plan to close the road, it would carry out further public consultation.
9. Mrs X says the Council failed to provide her with documents to show how it came to its original planning decision. All planning documents are publicly available on the Council’s planning applications section of its website. The Council signposted Mrs X to this in its complaint response.
10. The planning documents available show the Council’s highways team submitted a report as part of the planning consultation. This report addressed public transport, specifically bus routes, amongst other relevant highways considerations.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. In any event, Mrs X’s claimed personal injustice relates solely to damage to her property. While she has not specifically asked for compensation, any remedy for damage to property would be for insurers and then the courts if necessary, rather than the Ombudsman. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess economic losses and award compensation for damage to property. Such matters are really negligence claims.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and a claim for damage to property is best considered by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman