Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council reached its decision to permanently close a road to all vehicles except bicycles. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to close a road to all vehicles except bicycles, in order to implement a strategic cycle route. Mr X says this has resulted in a large increase in traffic on adjoining roads, with more air pollution, noise, inconvenience, and danger to pedestrians.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)
4. We also cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, and information about the decision-making process for the cycle route on the Council's website.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the decision to make the road closure permanent was take in early-2022, yet Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until December 2024. I see no good reasons why he did not contact us sooner, so we will not exercise discretion to consider this matter now.
8. And even if this time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body or overrule Council decisions. So, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, as we cannot direct the Council to reopen the road.
9. We also do not ask whether the Council could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it has done. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it has made its decisions. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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 Council made.
10. Whilst I appreciate Mr X might think the consultation and data analysis should have been done differently, the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide what methodologies to use. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to conclude that its approach amounted to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner, and is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman