Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems the complainant encountered when roads were closed for a public event. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says he was inconvenienced by road closures and incurred costs of £21.50 which he wants the Council to cover. He says the Council delayed responding to his complaint and did not answer all his questions.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X visited the area and encountered road closures. The roads were closed for a public event organised by a charity. Mr X says there was no advance warnings and the volunteers assisting with the event were unhelpful. Mr X could not drive to his destination and had to park and get a taxi.
5. Mr X complained to the Council about the road closures. He also made comments about a road junction which he expected the Council to address.
6. In response, the Council said that some of his concerns were the responsible of the highways authority; the Council is not the highways authority. It said the event was run by the charity and he should ask the charity for reimbursement. It also said its safety advisory group had approved the road closure and it would give feedback to the charity.
7. Mr X says the Council delayed replying to his complaint and the charity said it was too late for it to reimburse him. Mr X blames this on the Council and says it should reimburse his costs. He also says the Council did not answer all his questions.
8. I appreciated Mr X was inconvenienced and incurred some costs. However, a dispute over £21 is not one that requires an investigation. In addition, any delayed response or unanswered questions, do not represent a level of injustice that requires an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman