Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council managed traffic diverted by nearby roadworks, and its complaint responses. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating. There is not enough evidence that Council fault caused drivers to speed on his road. There is not enough significant injustice to Mr X from the Council’s complaint replies to justify us investigating that issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where roadworks were being done to major roads for about 10 weeks. Some drivers used the road on which he lives as an alternative route. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to recognise the impact road closures had on residents;
2. was not consistent with how it applied diversion restrictions to the area’s roads;
3. has been dismissive in its responses to complaints.
2. Mr X says drivers used his road to avoid the diversion and at some times of the day he could not get onto the road due to the queue of traffic. He says some drivers broke speed limits while using the road. Mr X wanted the Council to install ‘no entry’ signs for general traffic and only allow access to residents.

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; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. We will not usually investigate a council’s complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The roadworks caused disruption to the highway network in Mr X’s area for about 10 weeks. The Council recognised this would move traffic to other roads and put up signs on Mr X’s road advising motorists that it was not part of the diversion route, but the road remained open to all traffic.
7. As a through road close to the roadworks, it would be expected that Mr X’s road would have seen some increase in traffic. We note Mr X wanted the Council to put different signs up to stop use of his road by diverted drivers, only allowing residents access. But even with such signs, some drivers would still have used that road. We cannot say the traffic impacts Mr X would have had, if the Council had put up the signs he wanted, would have been so different that not having those signs led to a significant personal injustice. We recognise Mr X was caused frustration and inconvenience by the additional traffic. But there is not enough significant injustice to Mr X from the claimed Council fault, for the roadworks period which has ended, to warrant us investigating. We understand other residents may have been similarly affected, but any injustice to others is not Mr X’s personal injustice.
8. We note Mr X says the Council put signs on other roads ordering drivers not to use those roads as diversion routes. He considers the Council’s approach was inconsistent when it came to the signs it used. Mr X names one road as having signs indicating it must not be used by diverted motorists, road Y. But unlike Mr X’s road which is a through-route, road Y is a cul-de-sac. Road Y would have been signed as ‘resident access only’ to stop drivers who did not know the area from trying to use it as a diversion around the roadworks when it gives no through-route access. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X from the Council using different signs on different types of roads to warrant us investigating.
9. Mr X also says some drivers were speeding on his road. It was not any Council action or inaction which led to those drivers choosing not to comply with the speed limit. Speeding on public highways is a matter for the police, not the Council.
10. Mr X also complains about the Council’s responses to his complaint being dismissive. Officers considered his complaint and responded at both complaint stages. Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the outcome or contents of those responses does not amount to such a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating the Council’s complaints handling on its own, so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault causing drivers to speed on his road; and
• there is not enough significant injustice to Mr X from the Council’s complaint process to justify us investigating that part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman