The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to complete a proper consultation process before it decided to put filters/roadblocks on a road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council failed to complete a proper consultation process before it made its decision to put filters/roadblocks on a road.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has introduced filters/roadblocks to a road which prevents vehicles from driving down the road. The Council introduced this by a traffic regulation order (TRO).
The Council has provided evidence of the consultation it held with residents of the road as well as residents who lived in the surrounding area. The Council sent letters to residents, made information available on its website, held events, and used social media. The Council confirmed there was a consultation period between December 2021 and January 2022, and July and August 2022. Statutory consultation was also held between January and February 2023 as part of the TRO process.
An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has followed the correct process in implementing the TRO and has provided evidence of the action it took to consult with residents on the proposals.
In addition, although the Council received objections to the proposals, this does not mean the Council cannot implement the filter/roadblock. Further, it cannot be said that the Council failed to follow a proper decision-making process just because the Council decided to implement the proposals despite receiving objections. The Council’s role is to consider the objections and to decide how to proceed.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we cannot overturn the Council’s decision unless there has been fault in the way it made its decision. In this case, there is a clear record of the Council’s consideration of all objections it received, including its rationale for how it would address the points raised in the objections. Therefore, as the Council has followed a proper decision-making process, we could not find fault with the decision itself.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman