Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the width of cycle lanes along roads Dr X uses. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains the Council failed to both properly apply cycle lane markings to roads he uses and to ensure the road marking operatives held the appropriate qualifications to allow them to do so. Dr X says cycle lanes less than 1.5 metres wide cause safety concerns and since changes have been made, he has felt unsafe whilst on his bike. Dr X says this has caused him stress and concerns for his safety.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Dr X and relevant law and guidance.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Department for Transport (DfT) issues guidance setting out standards for the design and construction of cycle lanes. The DfT updates the guidance from time to time. The guidance is advisory and sets out best practice rather than it being compulsory for councils to follow.
6. Dr X has complained the cycle lanes he uses are not the width they should be and do not comply with the standards set out in the DfT guidance.
7. The Council explained to Dr X that when it designed and issued the order for the cycle lane in Street A, the guidance at the time stated 1.2 metre wide lanes were acceptable with 1.5 metre wide lanes being the preferred minimum. The Council tried to install 1.5 metre wide lanes where feasible however some reduction in places along the cycle lane was unavoidable as it needed to maintain three metre wide vehicle lanes in parts of the street. The Council confirmed none of the cycle lane in Street A is below the 1.2 metre standard.
8. The DfT issued revised guidance in July 2020 but as the cycle lane in Street A had already been designed and ordered, there was no obligation on the Council to consider the updated guidance even though the work to Street A was carried out after the new guidance came into effect.
9. Dr X complains the Council failed to follow the guidance and comply with the standards for all the cycle lanes he has highlighted. As this is not statutory guidance, the standards have no legal force. The Council was under no obligation to follow it. Because of this we will not investigate as we are unlikely to find the Council acted with fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council’s action to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman