The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about inconsistent decision making by the Council in approving the installation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and cycle routeways. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council used inconsistent decision-making processes in approving the installation of LTNs and cycle routeways in his locale. He says decisions for the schemes in his area were taken by the portfolio holder but the decision for the same schemes in another will be decided by full Cabinet which calls into question the earlier decisions made by one person. He says some of his journeys are now much longer and more time-consuming.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the different processes followed in different areas in introducing LTNs and cycle routeways in its area. He asked that it annul the schemes introduced in his area because they had been made by the portfolio holder rather than by full Cabinet which is the process to be followed for schemes in another area of the Council.
The Council’s monitoring Officer responded to Mr X to confirm each decision of the Council is made on its facts and merits and that the decisions taken for the schemes in his area were both constitutionally and legally compliant.
While I understand Mr X may disagree with the process used for the schemes in his area, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council. If Mr X wants to challenge the legality of the decisions, it is open to him to seek legal advice.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman