Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to repair rising bollards at a junction near the complainant’s home. The Council has taken action which is a satisfactory way to address the complaint, and we are unlikely to achieve a more worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to repair a rising bollard, which is intended to prevent vehicles from exiting a large residential development on to the single-track road where he lives. He says the road cannot cope with the volume of traffic, and causes a safety hazard for the pedestrians and cyclists which predominantly use the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposed to take in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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:
• the information provided by Mr X.
• information provided by the Council, which included their complaint correspondence, a chronology of when Mr X reported the faulty bollards, and an update on whether the bollards had been repaired.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. For the avoidance of any doubt, the time restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of defective bollards prior to 2024. I see no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider these historic events now.
8. And with regard to the ongoing problems Mr X reported and complained about in 2024/25, I understand the bollards have now been fixed in December 2025. On balance, and taking into account the apologies and explanations the Council gave in its complaint responses for failing to undertake the repairs for several months, I am satisfied the Council has now taken appropriate action to address the complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or to tell it how to operate its services, so we could not require the Council to implement an alternative solution to the bollards.
• if the problem persists, and Mr X considers that the Council is failing to maintain the highway, he can apply to the Magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. The court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider any ongoing concerns about the bollards.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because the Council has taken action which is a satisfactory way to address the complaint, and we are unlikely to achieve a more worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman