Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action in response to his reports of noise and vibration from a speed bump outside his house. We found fault by the Council in not carrying out an agreed action but consider an apology and site visit provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take action in response to his reports of noise and vibration from a speed bump outside his house. Mr X says the impact is affecting both his family’s health and quality of life and the structural integrity of his house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Council Policy

Highways Act 1980

7. Section 41 of the Highways Act places a duty on Highway Authorities to maintain the highway.
8. Highway Authorities are expected to have a system to receive and assess reports of damage or disrepair and to allocate reasonable priority to carry out necessary repairs.

Council Policy

9. The Council sets out its approach to highway inspections and repairs in its Highway Inspection Manual. This includes both routine and ad hoc inspections.
10. The Manual sets out the Council’s risk management approach. This determines whether or not the Council will act, and if so, what priority will be given to a repair. The Manual refers to the Code of Practice ‘Well Managed Highways Infrastructure’.
11. The routine inspection programme for this location consists of a 6 monthly driven inspection and an annual walked inspection.

What happened

12. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
13. Mr X reported this matter to the Council on 28 October 2024. The Council visited the site on 29 October 2024 but did not identify any investigatory‑level defects affecting the speed bump. The Council updated Mr X by email the same day. The Council explained it could not simply move speed bumps as they were put in as a traffic calming measure which went through consultation and were approved by engineers. The Council advised Mr X if he believed there was damage to his property he should contact his property insurer about a survey.
14. Mr X raised the matter again with the Council on 15 January 2025. The Council completed a further site inspection on 21 January 2025 and found no investigatory‑level defects associated with the speed bump. It was noted that some vehicles were travelling over the speed bump at high speed particularly heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) but no vibrations were felt whilst at the location. The Council provided an update to Mr X on 28 January 2025. The Council provided further advice to Mr X on 10 February about making a Community Highway Scheme application which would require Councillor support and how to make a formal complaint and/or an insurance claim.
15. Mr X emailed the Council on 11 February 2025 asking it to modify the speed bump outside his property. Mr X attached a letter from his builder as a witness to the vibrations affecting the property from vehicles ‘hurtling’ over the speed bumps particularly HGV and buses. The builder gave his professional view that sustained exposure to the vibrations could potentially cause cracking to mortar, internal walls and ceilings and other damage to the property. Mr X explained he was suffering disturbance from noise and vibration and was concerned about potential property damage.

16. The Council responded to Mr X on 14 March to say it would not modify or remove the speed bump as he had not provided sufficient evidence of damage and the speed bump had been in place since 2011 with no other residents raising issues. The Council also noted the distance from the speed bump to Mr X’s property.
17. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 March as he was unhappy it had not accepted the evidence from his builder and noted that although other residents may not have reported issues this did not mean his property was not affected. Mr X also noted the age of the speed bump and that traffic patterns may have changed over the period since installation and the Council should review the matter and make some adjustment. Mr X sent a follow up email to the Council on 17 March setting out the impact of noise and vibration from 5am which was affecting his sleep and health as well as potential property damage.
18. The Council treated the above correspondence as a formal complaint and provided a response at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure on 20 March. The Council reiterated its earlier response that it would not modify or remove the speed bump because:

• Mr X had not provided sufficient evidence of damage to his property
• the distance between the speed bump and Mr X’s property was sufficient to prevent damage
• satellite imagery confirmed the speed bump had been in place since 2001 and there had been no damage or negative impact within those 24 years
• the speed bump was installed for safety concerns
• no other residents had raised concerns

19. Mr X escalated his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure on 25 March. Mr X set out the following:

• he disputed he had not provided evidence of damage as he had provided a letter from a competent builder
• the fact others had not complained did not negate the impact on his property
• anti-social driving in the area showed the speed bump was not effective in terms of road safety
• disturbance started as early as 5am which had health impacts
• the issue had been ongoing for 12 years
• he wanted the Council to visit to experience the vibrations

20. The Council provided a response at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure to Mr X on 23 April. The Council noted the letter from Mr X’s builder did not provide evidence of damage from the speed bump which would require a qualified structural surveyor’s report. The Council accepted that whether other neighbouring properties had reported issues did not affect the reported issues from Mr X and its Stage 1 response had not explicitly addressed his own personal circumstances. The Council provided an apology for this oversight. The Council provided information about traffic calming measures reducing speed and its view that removing the speed bump would increase safety concerns at this location. The Council noted there had only been two minor injury accidents in the previous five years associated with the nearby junction and neither related to speed and so it did not agree the speed bumps had encouraged people to drive dangerously or at excessive speed. The Council also noted there may be an increase of traffic including large vehicles passing Mr X’s property in the absence of speed bumps. The Council explained it was sympathetic to the impacts Mr X said the speed bump was causing but that he had not provided medical evidence to support this and it did not consider he was disproportionately more impacted than other households at a similar distance. The traffic calming measures had been built before 2011 in accordance with design standards at the time and removing one element of the scheme would potentially make the remaining elements substandard and so this action could not be accommodated. The Council provided details of how to make a claim to its insurance team about property damage or medical expenses. The Council recognised the speed bump may cause vibrations and increased noise levels when vehicles passed over it but that this impact would have been considered at the original design stage in accordance with the relevant standards at the time and a decision was made that the beneficial impact on vehicle speeds outweighed any potential issues with noise/vibration. However, the Council confirmed it had asked the highway team to make a site visit in the next 4 weeks to see if any additional measures could be implemented to help reduce noise disturbance and vibrations. This may include the installation of chicanes either side of the speed bump and checking there was no loose tarmac creating unnecessary noise.
21. We asked the Council about the site visit outlined in its Stage 2 complaint response above. The Council said it had been unable to identify any record of a follow‑up site visit taking place within the four‑week period set out in its Stage 2 response. The Council says this was because a six‑monthly driven inspection was already scheduled (see below). With regard to the request for consideration of further measures, the Council says this was considered as part of a desktop assessment which did not identify any suitable options that could be delivered through reactive maintenance. The Council has not been able to provide a record of this desktop assessment.
22. The Council completed the 6 month driven inspection at this location on 10 June 2025. This identified some potholes with works completed on 16 and 23 June 2025. The Council completed the next 6 monthly driven inspection on 17 December 2025 which found no investigatory level defects. The most recent annual walked inspection was completed on 10 February 2026 which found no investigatory level defects.
23. The Council had separately received a report that the markings on the speed bumps were worn and difficult to see. Following a site inspection on 2 February 2026 the Council raised an order for the markings on all the speed bumps to be refreshed. It is not clear why this issue was not identified in the driven inspections in June and December 2025. The Council has confirmed clear markings are considered important in ensuring drivers reduce speed appropriately and this work will be completed in the near future but could not provide an expected timescale at the time of writing.

Analysis

24. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
25. I should also explain that the Ombudsman cannot decide the liability for any property damage which would ultimately be a matter for the courts to determine. It would be open to Mr X to seek advice on making an insurance claim about any such damage.
26. However, there is no evidence the Council attempted to witness the impact of disturbance from noise and vibration that Mr X was reporting from inside his property. The Council appears to have focussed on the potential property damage and its view the speed bump was not close enough to cause unacceptable issues until its Stage 2 response.
27. The Council’s complaint response above stated it would visit the location within the next four weeks to assess if any additional measures could be implemented to help reduce noise disturbance and vibrations which could include the installation of chicanes either side of the speed bump as well as checking there was no loose tarmac creating unnecessary noise. The Council did not meet this commitment to visit within four weeks. This is fault.
28. I have noted the Council’s visit to the location in January 2025 had identified vehicles were travelling over the speed bump at high speed particularly HGVs. Although the officer did not identify vibration at this site visit, the assessment was not made from Mr X’s property. In the circumstances, I do not consider the Council’s reliance on a scheduled driven inspection was reasonable. This would not provide an assessment of whether Mr X’s property was affected by excessive noise and vibration from vehicles travelling over the speed bump. I also note the Council cannot provide a record of its desktop exercise which it says it undertook to see if any additional measures could be implemented to help reduce noise disturbance and vibrations such as the installation of chicanes either side of the speed bump. Taken together, this is fault which will have caused Mr X a degree of uncertainty.
29. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Council has confirmed it is willing to arrange a visit by a suitably qualified officer to witness the reported noise and vibration from the particular speed bump and inspect the speed bump itself before providing a reasoned decision about what, if any, action is required. The Ombudsman would welcome this action.

Back to top

Action

30. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for not completing a site visit as set out in its final complaint response and failure to provide a record of its consideration of whether any additional measures could be implemented to help reduce disturbance from noise and vibration;
2. arrange for a suitably qualified officer to visit Mr X at his property to witness his reported disturbance from noise and vibration and reinspect the speed bump (ensuring an adequate record of the property visit and photographic evidence of the inspection of the speed bump); and
3. provide a reasoned decision to Mr X within four weeks of the above property visit about what, if any, action is required to help reduce disturbance from noise and vibrations with timescales as appropriate.
31. The Council’s complaint handling policy is in line with our published guidance – the Complaint Handling Code. However, we have identified fault with how it has dealt with this complaint because it did not carry out an action agreed in its final complaint response to Mr X within the stated timescale and was unable to provide a record of how it completed another agreed action.
32. In order to prevent similar faults from happening, the Council should review how it is applying its policy in practice, using this decision as part of that review, and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints.
33. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman