The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove online petitions and proposals for road widening as part of an air quality action plan. There is no fault by the Council on the petitions, we cannot achieve what Ms X wants, and she may use the procedures available for challenging road schemes.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has refused to remove misleading petitions on its website about proposed changes to roads and the local air quality action plan. Ms X wants the Council to make a public statement that the petitions are misleading.
Ms X complains the Council should halt proposed road widening and tree felling and hold a public enquiry, Ms X says the road widening will increase traffic and lower the quality of air.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Ms X’s information and comments. The information includes the complaint correspondence.
My assessment
I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint for the following reasons: There is no fault in the Council’s complaint response on the petitions. The Council has explained that it does not seek to influence petitions which allow residents to raise concerns. We cannot achieve what Ms X wants.
It is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to intervene when there are informal and formal ways of challenging the Council’s actions: The Council says it is consulting on changes to the scheme. Ms X may make her views known including contacting her local councillors.
There are formal procedures when making significant changes to roads or parking arrangements. The Council may be required to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which includes advertising the proposal. A TRO decision notice can be challenged at the High Court. Because there is a right of appeal a complaint about a decision is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraphs 4 and 5). It would likely be reasonable for Ms X to use the legal remedy because the Court has the power to quash a TRO.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove online petitions and proposals for road widening as part of an air quality action plan. There is no fault by the Council on the petitions, we cannot achieve what Ms X wants, and she may use the procedures available for challenging road schemes.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman