Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a cycleway the Council has decided to implement in the complainant’s local area. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has affected the decision to proceed with the current scheme, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to demonstrate it has followed the relevant road safety audit and cycle infrastructure design guidance/processes when deciding to implement a cycleway scheme in his local area. He says the cycleway will present many safety concerns regarding road junctions, access and egress from residential and commercial properties, bus stops and pedestrian crossings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. So, 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• the November 2023 and December 2024 reports and appendices to the Cabinet Member for City Services, and the minutes of the associated meetings.
• the January 2025 report to the Council’s ‘Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X has significant concerns about the impact of the cycleway on his local area.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. And our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made. If there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we consider whether this has caused the complainant a significant injustice, including whether that fault is likely to have affected the decision outcome.
7. I consider there is not enough evidence to suggest any fault by the Council has affected the proposal outcome, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• This section of the cycleway has been subject to four rounds of consultation/engagement, with three revisions to the design of the scheme.
• The design of the current scheme has been reviewed by Active Travel for England and Transport for West Midlands.
• The Council says officers responded to a number of questions raised at the December 2024 meeting on a wide range of safety-related issues, including the road safety audit process.
• The decision to proceed with the current scheme has been considered by the Council’s Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee.
• The Council’s final complaint responses explain how the road safety audit process applies to this kind of scheme. Whilst it accepts it has been unable to locate a copy of the instructions/brief given to the Stage 1 auditors, I have seen nothing else to suggest there was fault in the way the actual audit was conducted.
• The complaint response also explains how the Government’s cycle infrastructure design guidance has been applied to the scheme.
8. Furthermore, the scheme will be subject to a Stage 2 road safety audit by an external company before any work is carried out. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve much more than this in terms of the assessment of the scheme’s design/safety.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest fault by the Council has affected the scheme outcome, and an investigation is unlikely to add anything worthwhile.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman