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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to carry out maintenance works to the highway causing noise pollution from the road, safety issues and an adverse effect on his property and ability to enjoy his home without disturbance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council in July 2024. He asked the Council to resurface a part of his road, which had been resurfaced previously by a property developer for the development he now lived in. Mr Y said the road was causing noise pollution, meaning he was unable to enjoy his home with his family and wanted to the Council to use low-noise tarmac and install traffic calming measures in order to reduce noise.
7. The Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint, following a site visit. It said that it could not justify resurfacing the road on the basis of the noise issue and that the highway was of a satisfactory standard without a need for resurfacing. It also said that it would not resurface the road due to the noise issue, as it was under no duty to act on this basis. It also refused Mr Y’s suggestion that he be compensated for any potential loss of value to his property as a result of the noise issue.
8. The Council further referred Mr Y to his local borough councils to pursue any request he may have for calming measures on the road and for any public health issues for consideration. Mr Y then approached us.

Analysis

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Council do not owe a duty to investigate noise or vibration from traffic. Its duty, as a highways authority, is to reasonably maintain the highways so it is free of danger to all uses who use the highway in the way normally expected of them.
10. Consequently, the Council is not required to stop noise coming due to traffic from disturbing Mr Y. It is only required to maintain the highway, which in this case it has done by carrying out a site visit, considering the condition of the highway and having found that the road was suitably safety for use, decided not to act.
11. As the Council has fulfilled its duty in this way, we would be unlikely to find fault. Where there is no duty, such as in this case to reduce the noise from the road, we would not find fault in the Council not having acted. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating so we will not investigate this complaint.
12. Mr Y has also complained about the effect the noise may have on his property’s value, and has asked for compensation. If he does wish to pursue a claim under the Land Compensation Act 1973 he would need to approach the Upper Tribunal (Land Issues) who are set up for the purpose of considering such issues and so is better placed to consider such issues than we are. As the Tribunal can make reasonable adjustments, we would consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to approach the court.
13. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s refusal to install traffic calming measures in order to reduce the noise from the road and generally improve road safety. The Council has explained in its complaint response that the need for traffic calming measures was considered when the new housing development was built and it has found that this was not needed in the area, based on relevant factors such as the classification of the road and the features of the surrounding landscape. It also considered as part of its complaint response the average speeds of drivers using the road at that point and found the majority were driving at a safe speed and so it felt that action was not needed.
14. 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.
15. In this case as the Council considered the issues both prior to the development and again when considering the existing speeds of traffic in the area. From this information it has decided not to act to introduce calming measures and has been able to explain its decision to Mr Y. Consequently, as the decision has been made with proper consideration of the issue, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman