Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responsibility to ensure there is proper signage information for utility road works in its area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to check that the required signage is provided by utility companies when they carry out road works, including an emergency contact and permit number. He says he has been inconvenienced by failed traffic lights, he is concerned about resident safety and that the Council did not deal with his complaint properly.

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:

• 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 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint about this matter the Council explained it is not obliged to inspect all road works to ensure the required signage is in place and that it is the responsibility of the company concerned to ensure the signage condition in its permit is adhered to.
6. The Council said it does carry out inspections for 10% of all works over the year but that it does not have the resources to inspect all works because such action would be disproportionate and an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.
7. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. It is for the Council to decide the level of inspection it carries out and while Mr X may be dissatisfied with the Council’s response, there is no evidence to suggest fault which warrants investigation.
8. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint, but we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
9. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to the Subject Access Request he made, he can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, the body best placed to deal with such a matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman