Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an enquiry about a temporary road closure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not respond to his enquiry about a road closure near his home. The Council said it did but Mr X disagrees. He says it was stressful and felt like a personal attack against him. Mr X wants the Council to send him its original email response, admit it was wrong and apologise to him.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council introduced a temporary road closure near to Mr X’s home. Mr X emailed the Council to ask about the local road closures and whether it considered how it would impact local residents.
6. Mr X said the Council did not reply and chased it for a response.
7. The information shows Mr X contacted the Council with an enquiry rather than a complaint. As such, this is not a complaint handling issue. In any event, we do not normally investigate complaint handling separately from the substantive matter because it does not usually cause a significant personal injustice.
8. The Council escalated the matter as a complaint to the highways department. The Council then responded to Mr X’s complaint in line within its complaints policy. It explained it did respond to his enquiry in April 2026. It told him what date and time it sent the response to him.
9. The Council also repeated the message that it put in its response. It explained to Mr X the road would temporarily close to allow utility works to be completed. It explained another road was closed for maintenance works.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees and wants the Council to send him the original email. The evidence suggests the Council sent the email to Mr X. I do not know why Mr X did not receive it and therefore cannot say it was because of any fault by the Council. In any case, the Council explained to Mr X about the reason for the temporary road closures and therefore Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. I do not consider any injustice caused by the temporary road closure or how the Council handled Mr X’s concerns about it is significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman