Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to provide either signage or a bollard to protect his home from turning HGVs after his home was hit on two occasions in 2023.
2. Mr Y says he fears for his safety and his property every day and worries he will be unable to sell his home if he decides to move.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y asked the Council to consider placing a bollard on the pavement outside his home to protect the wall of his property, particularly the corner, which had been hit by vehicles in May and October 2023.
7. The Council considered the request but explained that the pavement outside Mr Y’s property is too narrow for it to place a bollard there. It said that if it did this would obstruct and effectively block the pavement for pedestrians. It also said that it did not have a duty to protect his property from traffic which came off the road. Mr Y was unhappy with this response and so approached us.
8. 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.
9. In this case, the Council has considered Mr Y’s request. It has considered its duties and explained why it has chosen not to place a bollard on the pavement outside Mr Y’s property and that it does not have a duty to do so. While Mr Y may be unhappy with the outcome, as the Council has considered such relevant factors, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman