Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to alterations to a crossing close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a change from an uncontrolled to a controlled crossing point in his road and close to his home. He says the crossing is wrongly sited and that the flashing beacons cause a nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the installation of a controlled crossing with flashing beacons installed close to his home which replaced the previous uncontrolled crossing point.
7. The Council explained the controlled pedestrian crossing was installed by the developer of a new housing development under a planning condition in recognition of the additional traffic generated by the development and by future developments in the area.
8. It told Mr X the height of the beacons conformed to zebra crossing regulations and that it was arranging a Road Safety Audit which would consider the number of beacons. It said if it decided it was appropriate to reduce the number of beacons it would ask the developer to do so. It responded to Mr X’s request for a site meeting by explaining that as it had properly followed the correct processes, standards and procedures, it did not consider a meeting was required.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils that complainants do not agree with. We cannot question council decisions when the councils have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may disagree with the siting of the controlled crossing point, the decision is the Council’s to make and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman