Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to do highway safety works or install a grit bin at a junction near his property, and how it considered evidence he provided. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council to warrant an investigation. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants. It would be reasonable for him to pursue at court any finding on whether the road meets legally acceptable standards.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a road junction. He complains the Council has:
1. refused his requests for it to install traffic calming measures to slow drivers approaching the junction and for a gritting bin there;
2. ignored his evidence of speeding drivers, near misses and damage to his property.
2. Mr X says the situation is costing him money as he has to fix his boundary each time it is damaged by drivers crashing into his property. He says the police has not supported him in pursuing insurance claims against drivers involved and there has been a lack of understanding from the Council. Mr X wants the Council to install more 20mph signs, speed bumps or a chicane, and a gritting bin.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council reviewed the information it held about incidents and injuries at the junction. Officers determined the data did not justify them prioritising the location for safety measures or other works. They found they needed to give priority to works on other parts of the highway network with more incidents, or with incidents which caused greater harm. Mr X sent the Council evidence and information from other sources and says officers ignored this. Officers received the information he provided but decided it was not sufficient to alter their position. That is a decision they were entitled to make. It is for officers to gather evidence and use their professional judgement to decide where the Council uses its resources, including which roads require safety or other works before others. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process in prioritising its road works to warrant an investigation. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there had been fault by the Council, we would not investigate. The core injustice Mr X claims is the expense he has incurred after drivers misjudging the road conditions or junction layout have hit and damaged his property’s boundary, which he has then had to repair. Officers have acknowledged the expense Mr X has been put to. But this injustice is caused by the actions of the drivers involved. It does not stem directly from actions or inactions of the Council. We understand Mr X considers he has not had sufficient support from the police to pursue any of the drivers for his costs, but the police service is not within our jurisdiction and we cannot investigate its involvement. We realise Mr X says other road users are also affected by the junction. Any impacts on others of the matters complained of are not his personal injustice. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X stemming from the Council’s actions or inactions here to justify us investigating.
10. Mr X wants the Council to put in safety measures and a gritting bin at the junction. We cannot order councils to reprioritise works at a complained-of location on its highway network. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. Mr X may consider the Council’s junction is not up to a suitable standard. It is not our role to judge the standard of any council’s roads. That is a matter for the courts, as set out in the Highways Act 1980. The 1980 Act also details the factors the court should consider when making its decision on whether a road is of an acceptable standard. If Mr X wants a ruling on whether the road meets legal requirements, it would be reasonable for him to pursue this in court because only the courts can make that legal determination. He may wish to seek independent legal advice if taking that route.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient personal injustice to him caused directly by any action or inaction of the Council to warrant an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants; and
• it would be reasonable for him to pursue at court any finding on whether the Council’s road meets legally acceptable standards.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman