Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to maintain traffic signs near his home obscured by vegetation and difficult to read at night. We found the Council at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr X’s concerns about the traffic signs. To put matters right, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 in recognition of the distress caused by its delays in responding to both his service request and complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X asked the Council to maintain road signs near his home and keep them clear of overhanging vegetation. On getting no response, Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to maintain the signs. Mr X received automatic email acknowledgements from the Council when he chased it for a response to his requests and complaints. After months without a substantive reply from the Council, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X said he felt ignored and he wanted the Council to respond and maintain the traffic signs.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• considered information provided by the Council about the complaint; and
• gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Traffic Signs

5. The Council, as a traffic authority, has powers to erect traffic signs to give information and guidance to road users and help ensure safe and efficient traffic movements. Signs should therefore be visible and readable. The Government’s 2018 Traffic Signs Manual (‘the Manual’) offers advice to traffic authorities about traffic signs. The Manual says, “the word “should” indicates a course of action that is recommended and represents good practice”.
6. Chapter 8 of the Manual deals with sign maintenance and says it is ‘very important signs are adequately maintained to retain their effectiveness’. Chapter 8 advises that traffic authorities “should” make:

• “a periodic inspection” of signs to ensure their early repair and or replacement; and
• after dark inspections of lit and reflecting signs.

Chapter 8 also says maintenance inspections “should” include the visual, electrical and structural condition of signs. And regular cleaning is essential and “should” follow the manufacturer’s instructions. Chapter 8 says ‘it is essential to maintain distance visibility’. So, it says there “should” be regular inspections, particularly in summer when growing trees, plants and grass are most likely to cause obstruction.

The Council’s complaint policy

7. The Council’s policy sets out a three stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the person handling the matter complained about, or the manager of that service, will respond within 10 working days. If dissatisfied with that response, the complainant can take their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the Council carries out a formal investigation and will issue a report within 10 working days. At stage 3, a senior Council officer will, within 10 working days, check officers have dealt with the complaint at stages 1 and 2 in line with the complaints policy. The Council’s complaints policy says if a complaint is very complex it may need to extend its 10 working days response targets. The policy also says the Council will tell the customer as soon as it knows there will be a delay in responding.

What happened

8. Mr X first contacted the Council about the condition of road signs near his home in June 2020. After chasing the Council for a response, Mr X complained about its failure to maintain local road signs in line with the Manual. The Council replied, upholding the complaint, and saying it had:

• failed to correctly record Mr X’s service request;
• failed to meet its 10 working days service response target;
• not been able to respond to Mr X’s chaser requests for information as it had not clearly updated its records to show what steps it had taken; and
• failed to give Mr X an update when he twice chased for information.

The Council also confirmed it would cut back vegetation overhanging the signs within two weeks.

9. Two weeks passed and Mr X contacted the Council asking to take his complaint to stage 2. Mr X accepted the Council had cut back some overhanging vegetation but said it was not enough to achieve the visibility standards in the Manual. Mr X also said the Council still had not addressed his service request, and complaint, about the need to clean the traffic signs in line with the Manual. Mr X said the overhanging vegetation and dirt made the signs particularly difficult to read at night. And removing some vegetation now showed the signs were damaged and in need of repair or replacement. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s stage 2 complaint and said he should receive a full response within two weeks.
10. Mr X continued to chase the Council for a response and contacted the Ombudsman. We also repeatedly contacted the Council seeking information. And, about 10 months after the Council had received Mr X’s stage 2 complaint, the Council told us it had no record of sending him a response. The Council offered its apologies for its poor communication with both Mr X and the Ombudsman. It said it did not currently have a regular traffic sign cleaning programme. However, the signs Mr X complained about were programmed for replacement in 2022.

Consideration

11. The Council admitted it did not respond appropriately to Mr X’s service request, although it eventually cut back vegetation obscuring the traffic signs (see paragraph 8). Later, the Council also recognised it fell below acceptable standards in communicating with Mr X (see paragraph 10). This poor communication included the Council’s failure to meet its complaints’ response time target at stage 1. And its failure to respond to Mr X’s stage 2 complaint. So, there was fault in both the Council’s handling of Mr X’s service request and his resulting complaint.
12. Mr X lived close to the traffic signs he complained about. He therefore had local knowledge of the information and guidance they provided without needing to rely on them when travelling along the road. However, Mr X knew about the Manual and so his concern about the potential impacts of poorly maintained signs was understandable. The Council’s delay in acting after he reported the condition of the signs would have caused him distress. Mr X also spent avoidable time having to chase the Council for a response to his concerns and later complaint.
13. After the Council cut back overhanging vegetation, Mr X remained dissatisfied as it had not cleaned the signs. Mr X also considered that cutting back the vegetation showed the signs needed repair or replacement. The Council said it did not currently have a programme of regular sign cleaning, but it planned to replace the signs Mr X complained about in 2022. The Manual is advisory and uses “should” in dealing with sign maintenance. So, it would be ‘good practice’ for the Council to regularly clean its traffic signs. Using Internet maps, aside from the signs Mr X complained about, others on nearby roads appeared to be of clean and sound condition. However, the signs Mr X complained about did show dirt and so cleaning would be an improvement. However, I did not find the Council at fault for not cleaning them as no express statutory duty to do so exists and their replacement was due in 2022.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. To put right the distress to Mr X caused by the fault I identified at paragraph 11, the Council agreed, within 30 working days of this statement, to:

• send Mr X a written apology for both the poor service he received after reporting the signs and its failure to respond to his stage 2 complaint; and
• pay Mr X £100 in recognition of his avoidable distress and time and trouble in having to repeatedly chase it for a response to his concerns and complaint.

15. The Council also agreed to send the Ombudsman evidence of its compliance with paragraph 14. That evidence should be sent within 40 working days of this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraphs 14 and 15 inclusive.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman