Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about safety concerns on a road near his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says a road near his home that has a school and college bus stop, a 60-mph speed limit, and no pedestrian crossing, constitutes a serious road safety risk. Mr X wants the Council to consider new safety measures for the road and installation of a pedestrian crossing.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or

3. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about the safety of a road near his home and asked the Council to consider new road safety measures to include:
• a pedestrian crossing;
• improvements to the road surface which he alleged was worn;
• renewal of road markings that were faded;
• a possible reduction to the speed limit of the road.
8. The Council responded to Mr X and said:
• its road safety team would add the location to the list of sites to be assessed for new measures;
• his request for a pedestrian crossing would be assessed against the Council's criteria for new crossings.
• a speed limit reduction would be considered under the criteria outlined in its Speed Management Strategy;
• the section of road was due to be resurfaced in 2026 and was last inspected in May 2025.
9. The Council directed Mr X to its relevant policies on the internet for further information.
10. While I understand Mr X’s concerns, we will not investigate his complaint.
11. Our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
12. The Council has offered a proportionate and reasonable response to Mr X’s complaint. It has set out the actions it will take and how future works will be decided. These are decisions of professional judgment, and without evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decisions, we cannot intervene. That is the case here.
13. Also, while it is clear the issues at the heart of this complaint are important to Mr X, there is no evidence he has suffered a significant personal injustice. Our involvement is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman