The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not replying to consultation comments on proposed waiting restrictions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. The injustice is also not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr Y can reasonably make a subject access request for any information the Council holds about him, and approach the Information Commissioner if not satisfied with its response.
The complaint
Mr Y says the Council installed double yellow lines without adequate consultation or following correct procedures, and has failed to provide him a response to the submission he made to the consultation process.
Mr Y also says the Council failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and has failed to follow its published complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council is under no obligation to consult residents when deciding whether to install double yellow lines.
Any consultation is, however, an invitation to comment and have the Council take comments into account when reaching its decision. It is not a process of discussion or negotiation.
Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Mr Y has also said he did not disagree with the principle of the Council’s proposals, so any injustice he might claim in the matter would not be significant enough to warrant our involvement.
Mr Y can make a subject matter access request if he wants the Council to provide him with copies of the submissions he made during the consultation process. If he is still not happy then he can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which considers complaints about data protection and freedom of information.
In cases where we do not investigate the matters in a complaint, we do not separately investigate the Council’s complaints procedure.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Moreover, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider a complaint if Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s response to a request for information.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman