Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a temporary road closure. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council allowed an organisation to block off a road near her home for a parade which lasted approximately 30 minutes. She said adequate notice and information was not provided beforehand.
2. Miss X said this caused a safety hazard due to access being blocked to the estate. She said this also caused inconvenience, as she almost missed a pre-paid event.
3. Miss X wanted the Council to:
• prohibit any blocking of roads by organisations in the future; and
• ensure that every household is directly informed of any future road closures with sufficient detail.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complained an organisation was allowed to block off the only access road to her estate without prior notice. She said this posed a safety risk and almost caused her to miss a pre-paid event.
8. The Council considered Miss X’s concerns and responded. It confirmed multiple considerations and steps were in place to address safety concerns, including:
• obtaining a Traffic Regulation Order for the event;
• placing traffic marshals at all junctions to ensure emergency service access;
• liaising with the Safety Advisory Group prior to the event, consisting of Police, Ambulance and Fire services; and
• ensuring police officers were present on the day.
9. The Council confirmed the annual event had been advertised in the local newspaper and online. Laminated notices were also displayed on street prior to the event. The notices confirmed the time, date and duration of the event.
10. The Council added however, that in light of Miss X’s concerns, it would ask organisers to complete letter-drops to local residents in the future.
11. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
12. This means that 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 by the Council, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
13. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
14. Miss X said she was inconvenienced for between 20 to 40 minutes. She said this could have caused her to miss a pre-paid event but ultimately, she did not.
15. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not significant injustice to justify our involvement. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the council to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman