The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a relief road proposal. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault has not yet caused the complainant a significant injustice, we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about access to information.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has failed to effectively communicate or consult with residents on the design of a proposed relief road, and that it is has provided misleading, ambiguous, incomplete and/or inaccurate information about the scheme.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The Ombudsman can 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 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) In that regard, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Ms X, and our Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Ms X is very concerned about the Council’s preferred design option for a new relief road near her home, and the way the Council has progressed the scheme thus far.
But the Ombudsman cannot comment or consider an alleged fault by a Council in an administrative process until there is evidence of a significant personal injustice caused to the complainant as a direct result of that fault. We normally consider that no such injustice occurs to a complainant until a planning application is granted for the development being complained about. Ms X may make such a complaint if planning permission for the Council’s preferred option is granted in the future.
In addition, even if the Ombudsman did start an investigation into Ms X’s complaint, we could not achieve the outcome she is seeking, as we could not direct the Council to pause its progression of the scheme.
Finally, if Ms X has concerns about the Council’s handling of requests for information about the proposal, it seems reasonable to expect her to raise these matters with the ICO. It is the body with specific powers and expertise to investigate the Council’s information handling practices.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not yet caused her a significant injustice, we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking, and the ICO is better placed to consider concerns about access to information.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman