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

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council has not replaced a bollard on the corner along a road. She is also unhappy with the Council’s communication while dealing with her complaint about the bollard.
2. Mrs Y says she is deeply concerned a lorry or other vehicle will hit the side of her property, causing significant damage. This is especially because the bollard, which she says protects the side of her property wall, was struck by a vehicle, causing its removal.

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, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y complained to the Council after the bollard which sits at the corner of her property, to alert drivers of the wall, was not replaced following an accident on her narrow street. Mrs Y says her complaint correspondence was not responded to, and she had to chase for a reply.
7. The Council replied in May 2025, saying it had considered the issue and had found the bollard was a historic asset and therefore it needed further advice from both its traffic and safety teams and its conservation team before any replacement could be made. It explained that this meant it would likely not replace the bollard within the following six months, but that it was trying to resolve the issue and would try to complete the work as soon as possible. It also upheld Mrs Y’s complaint about the poor communication and apologised for this. Mrs Y then approached us.
8. The Council has considered the replacement of the bollard in this case. It has found that rather than a standard bollard, the replacement needs to be considered differently, due to the previous one being a historic asset. It has agreed to consult the relevant departments within the Council to ensure that the replacement is completed correctly. As part of this, it has explained to Mrs Y that this will take time and has sought to reassure her that while this may not be immediate, a replacement will be made as soon as possible.
9. While Mrs Y may not be satisfied with the Council’s response, and may be concerned as a result, as the Council has considered the issue and is able to explain why time will be needed before a replacement can be made, there is not enough evidence of fault in its approach to the matter to justify investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue in this case, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s complaint contacts and correspondence. We will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs 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