Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the removal of trees, leaves and debris from a stretch of road by her home and safety measures. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on how it would respond to Miss B’s concerns to justify starting an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained that the Council has failed to remove fallen trees, leaves and debris from a stretch of road by her home and it has closed down dialogue with her about the implementation of safety measures. Miss B told us there have been several accidents in the same spot on the road outside her home causing significant damage to her property, anxiety, stress and inconvenience.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information the Council and Miss B provided and Miss B’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In April 2020 Miss B asked the Council to remove fallen trees and branches from the road before they caused injury or damage. She contacted the Council about the matter again in June, August, and September 2020. She then made a formal complaint.
6. The Council replied to Miss B’s complaint in October 2020 after considering what she had said, its case notes and officer reports. The Council said it had planned road sweeping for the following Sunday when the traffic would be light and it would look to clean the road more frequently during the autumn leaf fall period. The Council said it had asked its contractor to remove the fallen tree as soon as possible. But the contractor would have to prioritise the work needed across the borough. The Council said it had already reduced the speed limit on the road and the speed limit is clearly marked. It said the introduction of street lighting was unlikely because of the nature of the road. The Council told Miss B it relies to some extent on police road safety collision data. Its letter identified the most recent data on an aerial map. The Council explained it must consider the road safety picture within a wider context. It said Miss B’s previous concerns had been raised at its traffic liaison forum meetings (a group which includes Transport for London, council officers, the police and other emergency services) and it would ask for the matter to be brought back to that forum in the light of the most recent incident. The Council said it had a sum of money available to address broader road safety issues in the general area of Miss B’s road and it was carrying out a road safety review.
7. Miss B has made considerable efforts to try to get her concerns resolved. But it is for the Council to decide how best to use its resources to maintain its roads and to decide what road safety measures are necessary. It is not the case that the Council has failed to consider Miss B’s complaint. The Council has set out its position in detail to her. It has considered the matters we would expect it to have considered.
8. Miss B told us the second element of her complaint is about the way the Council responded to an email she sent in September 2020. In that email she told the Council about the most recent accident. She asked the Council to respond letting her know what measures it would now consider. Miss B said this email was not a complaint. She said she had been expecting a reply from the person dealing with the matter and for the Council to start into a dialogue with her. Instead the Council merged the issue with those she had raised in her formal complaint and closed the complaint with no input in its final response from the person she had expected to reply. Miss B told us there had been a further accident in November 2020 and the police supported her request for action.
9. Following a recent meeting between a council officer and the police, they agreed some chevron type bend hazard signs could be installed to try to mitigate the risk of further collisions. The Council agreed to meet the cost and has provided a photograph to show the signs now in place.
10. A complaint to the Ombudsman is not the same as an appeal against a council decision. While it is understandable that Miss B wanted the Council to take action, the Council has shown it has looked at the concerns she had raised. There is no requirement on the Council to enter into ongoing dialogue with her. It is for the Council to judge how to prioritise the resources it has available and, in liaison with the police and emergency services, which road safety measures it will fund. Our role is to look at the Council’s decision-making process. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on how it would respond to Miss B’s concerns to justify starting an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on how it would respond to Miss B’s concerns to justify starting an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman