Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about roadworks in the Council’s area. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council. And Mr Q’s injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr Q, complained that West Sussex County Council is not doing enough to coordinate current and scheduled non-emergency roadworks. He said this caused increased journey times for residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:

• the information Mr Q provided;
• information available on the Council’s website;
• Government guidance – Best practice in street works and highway works 2011;
• Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016; and
• Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr Q said there are too many current and scheduled non-emergency roadworks in the Council’s area. He said the Council had not properly considered how it could minimise disruption to local residents and road users. He also said the Council did not ensure there were sufficient signs which would allow road users to find alternative routes.
5. Mr Q wants the Council to publish non-emergency works on its website. He also wants the Council to require companies to provide clearer signs when they are carrying out roadworks.
6. Mr Q commented on the Government guidance referred to in paragraph 3. He said the Council was not fully committed to adopting best practice with street works and highways. Mr Q referred to non-emergency street works in the area but did not say where they were. He did, however, say that a journey that would normally take him 2-3 minutes took him 25 minutes. Mr Q wants the Council to ensure contractors put warning signs much further from roadworks showing alternative routes. He said this would minimise disruption.
7. Information about current and future roadworks can be found on the Council’s website.

Analysis

8. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. I recognise Mr Q’s frustration about the roadworks. I also recognise he wants to ensure the Council coordinates non-emergency roadworks to minimise disruption. However, although Mr Q spoke about roadworks in the area, he gave no specific information about them. So we could not conclude the Council is at fault in the way Mr Q alleges when we do not know the specific roadworks he is concerned about.
10. In any event, it is for the Council to decide how roadworks should be arranged and organised, not us. Information about current and future roadworks is already available on the Council’s website. Mr Q would like signs displayed much further from roadworks to help minimise disruption. But neither the Government guidance nor the Regulations described in paragraph 3 say where such signs should be placed. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.
11. Mr Q referred to the impact of roadworks on road users and local residents. He said his own journeys have taken up to 25 minutes rather than the usual 2-3 minutes. However, it is open to Mr Q to check the information available on the Council’s website and find alternative routes where possible. So I am not persuaded the injustice Mr Q has suffered because of the alleged fault is significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman