The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to notify him of the cabinet meeting which was to consider his petition about a highway scheme. Investigation will not likely add to what the Council has said. There is insufficient injustice or public interest to investigate. It would not be a good use of limited public resources given the circumstances.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his petition to a cabinet meeting relating to proposals for highway pedestrian crossings. The Council failed to notify him of the date the cabinet considered the petition and he lost the opportunity to speak about the petition. Mr X says the Council caused time and trouble because he has chased the petition up since last year. Mr X says he does not accept the Council’s explanation of what went wrong. He wants the Council to provide a full and honest explanation.
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: 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mr X’s information and comments. The information includes the Council’s stage 2 complaint reply.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: Investigation is not likely to add to the Council’s explanation of what happened and it would not be a good use of limited public resources. There is insufficient injustice or public interest to investigate: The Council has acknowledged and apologised for its mistakes which resulted in Mr X not being present at the meeting which considered the highway petition this year. It has reviewed its practice and says there was human error and miscommunication between teams. The highways team thought there was no longer a need for the petition because the desired scheme had been funded and was progressing. The governance team continued to schedule the petition as outstanding.
The Council’s apology to Mr X remedies any injustice regarding the petition. I note the traffic team manager kept Mr X updated on the progress of the pedestrian crossings schemes including useful emails in March 2022. Funding was not available for the scheme last year but was found for this financial year.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to notify him of the cabinet meeting which was to consider his petition about a highway scheme. Investigation will not likely add to what the Council has said. There is insufficient injustice or public interest to investigate. It would not be a good use of limited public resources given the circumstances.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman