Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Council delays in acting on her report about misleading road signs. This is because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Ms X and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to remove a road sign after she told it she believed the sign was confusing. She said she has spent time and effort chasing the Council for responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council after it erected a road sign which covered over another road sign. She said this meant road users could not see both signs and it could cause an accident.
6. The Council responded to her complaint. It gave her reasons for the delay in removing the sign. It also said it needed to complete outstanding works in the most cost-effective way.
7. The Council also apologised to Ms X for delays in responding to her complaint.
8. Ms X then complained to us when the Council had not removed the sign more than a year after she reported it.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice. Ms X has not suffered significant loss, harm or distress as a direct result of the road signs she says are misleading.
10. The Council has apologised to Ms X for delays in responding to her complaint. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice Ms X has experienced through the complaint procedures.
11. Additionally, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already identified the reasons for the delay and explained these to Ms X. Further investigation by us would therefore not lead to a different outcome.
12. Finally, we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants. We cannot tell the Council how to prioritise its work, it is for the Council to plan how it uses its resources.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already identified reasons for the delay and apologised to her which is sufficient to remedy any injustice Ms X has experienced. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman