Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a road closure. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, Mr X claims no significant injustice from the issue and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response to the complaint or achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s process for approving a road closure for works by a utility company. He says the Council has failed to show how it assessed the impact of the closure taking into account other works which were already scheduled.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
5. I understand Mr X is concerned about the way the Council decided to approve the road closure but he claims no significant injustice from the issue and lives some distance from the road. He also does not complain about the works themselves or question whether they were needed.
6. The Council’s response explains the steps it took when considering the request to close the road, the reasons other options were not feasible and how it considered the impact of the closure and it is unlikely we could add to its response by investigating further. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council but it is also unlikely we would find fault or that we could say it should have done things differently.
7. Ultimately the Council felt a full road closure was the only option available to allow the utility company to complete the works and it did what it could to ensure the company carried out the works as quickly and efficiently as possible. Its approach to the issue is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to question it. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and Mr X does not claim any significant injustice from its actions, whether fault or not. Further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman