Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to do works to a junction near where he lives to help pedestrians, how it made that decision and replied to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault and insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area with a roundabout on a major road nearby. He complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consider safety concerns about pedestrians crossing the road at the roundabout;
2. failed to do a site visit;
3. used data and information which fails to take into account his and other pedestrians’ experiences;
4. failed to explore safer alternative improvements to the road;
5. initially misidentified the location at stage one of the complaints process;
6. provided complaint responses which ignored issues, and his suggestions for community engagement and improvements.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him ongoing anxiety and frustration. He says he regularly witnesses dangerous situations where pedestrians, including children, are forced to cross in fast-moving traffic with poor visibility and no formal crossing. Mr X says he feels powerless watching near misses happen while he considers the Council dismisses the risks. He says he has spent significant time raising concerns, gathering evidence, and navigating the complaints process. Mr X says he feels ignored and that his confidence in the Council's commitment to safety has been undermined.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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 was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns about the pedestrian safety of the junction, the Council reviewed its information for the area. The Council’s highways officers determined that traffic tests had shown speeds were within statutory limits and that no speed-related incidents had been reported. They noted the junction had designated crossing points for pedestrians to use. Officers considered the number of pedestrians crossing at the junction’s location was limited. They took the view that a pedestrian crossing at the junction could compromise the safety of all road users. Officers decided the location did not demonstrate enough of a risk to warrant road safety works.
8. Officers gathered relevant information about the location when making the Council’s decision not to do road safety works there and give other sites greater priority. Those were professional judgement decisions officers were entitled to make at the end of their assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council applied its decision-making process here to justify us going behind its decision and investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the approach the Council takes under its policies when assessing road safety matters. He considers it should take account of different information, including site visits, information from residents and pedestrians’ experiences. But councils are entitled to adopt policies they consider most appropriate to make their assessments. There is not enough evidence here of fault in the process the Council used when adopting its highways policies to justify us investigating.
10. Even if there had been fault by the Council here we would not investigate. Where we identify council fault, our remit then requires us to also consider whether it has caused a significant personal injustice to the complainant. Mr X’s complaint is more a campaign for public road safety than a complaint with him as the person most directly affected. He has not been involved in any accidents at the junction. We cannot take into account anxiety about what might happen there as an injustice, as that is speculation and would not be based on actual events. Any incidents not involving Mr X would not be his injustice. He is no more affected than any other resident or road user by the Council’s decision not to do works at the junction. We recognise Mr X spent time and had trouble in bringing the matter to the Council. But it was his decision to use that time and effort to complain on a matter which does not cause him significant injustice. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X here from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation.
11. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint-handling, including errors in its process and the content of responses. The Council accepts its first reply misidentified the junction, but this was corrected during the later stages of the process. In any event, we do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman