Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to take measures to prevent traffic issues caused by a road closure in 2018 and did not handle his complaint correctly. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault in the Council’s complaints handling. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to apologise to Mr C for its errors.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr C) says the Council failed to erect signage and take suitable measures to prevent heavy traffic, speeding, dangerous driving and heavy vehicles using the road where he lives [Road A] whilst a road closure was in place in 2018. He also says the Council failed to properly deal with his complaints.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at whether the Council followed procedures when considering what signage was needed for the road closure. I have not looked at other issues for the reasons below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr C. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response and evidence.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 1 October 2018, the Council implemented a temporary road closure. A diversion route plan was put in place with signage erected around roads the Council considered most likely to be affected by the closure and increased traffic volumes. It says no signs were placed near or on Road A because “it was not anticipated...this lane would be so well used”.
8. On the same day, another resident contacted the Council stating heavy vehicles were now diverting along Road A. On 2 October, the Council instructed its contractors to erect signage, including “unsuitable for HGV” signs to divert traffic away from Road A. A revised signage plan was given to the contractors. The Council’s records show additional signage for Road A was erected within a week. This was further confirmed on 12 October when another resident told the Council the signs were in use and had reduced traffic volumes on Road A.
9. On 30 October Mr C contacted his Councillor stating there had been an injury caused by a vehicle and Road A was being used by increased traffic. Drivers were ignoring signage. The Council replied to Mr C the same day. It said that slow and no HGV signs were in place but the Council could not prevent road users following a different route. Mr C remained dissatisfied and lodged a formal complaint.
10. The Council replied to the complaint in November. It said the road closure was essential and an official diversion route was in place but it could not force drivers to follow it. Mr C pursued his case on 23 November. He said signs for Road A should have been in place from the start. He asked for a copy of the Council’s risk assessment for the diversion route. He also asked if he could speak by telephone to an Officer. The following week the Council told Mr C his complaint had been escalated and would be considered. The Council sent its final response on 9 January 2019. It reiterated its previous comments and the road closure had ended on 20 November.

What should have happened

11. When the Council considers a road closure it has to assess a range of factors to decide on the best diversion route for traffic. A Highways Officer will take account of factors including the types of roads, what vehicles typically use the route, the potential for traffic jams, etc. The Highways Officer will produce a diversion route plan. This is a map of the proposed diversion route showing where signage should be erected. The Council can also erect signage directing vehicles to slow down or that a route is not suitable for HGVs. The Council will agree the diversion route and get contractors to erect signage.
12. If the Council receives reports the signage is not sufficient it will consider changing the signage or erecting additional signs. There is no set timeframe to place additional signs.

Was there fault by the Council

13. Mr C says the Council should have placed signage to deter traffic using Road A from the start of the road closure on 1 October. I do not see evidence of fault by the Council. Officers followed the correct process and drafted a route diversion plan. They initially decided signage for Road A was not required as the expected traffic flow would not impact on Road A. I appreciate Mr C feels this was wrong and the Council should have realised traffic would increase based on previous works in the area however it was a decision the Council was entitled to make given it adhered to the correct process. Furthermore, the Council responded promptly to a report from another resident about increased traffic on Road A and erected additional signage well within a week. The Council is not responsible for drivers who choose to use a particular route and ignore signage showing the Council’s preferred route. I understand Mr C feels the Council could have done more but I consider it met the requirements of the policy and the Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions where there is no evidence of fault in how the decision was reached.
14. Mr C asked the Council in his complaint for details of its risk assessment. The Council failed to explain to Mr C, in its response, that it was not required to produce a risk assessment document. I also note Mr C asked for a call to discuss matters with the Council and the Council failed to reply to this point too. The Council says it did not consider a call would be useful. That may be the case but it should have explained this to Mr C. I consider there is fault by the Council and its second complaint response failed to address the points raised by Mr C.

Did the fault cause an injustice

15. Mr C did not have all his queries answered by the Council in its January 2019 reply. That left him uncertain about what process had been followed and why he had not been allowed a telephone discussion with an Officer.

Agreed action

16. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr C the Council has agreed with my recommendation to send Mr C a letter of apology for the fault I have identified. The Council should issue that letter within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

18. I have not considered matters relating to dangerous driving or injuries caused by vehicles because those are issues for the Police to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman