Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a request for speed restrictions and traffic calming measures. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is also unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not introduced traffic calming measures on a nearby road. He says the Council’s lack of action is putting pedestrians’ safety at risk and causing distress. He wants the Council to take action to ensure pedestrian 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3.  
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 believes the Council did not consider all the facts in its assessment of average speeds and collision data for the road near his home.
8. The Council explained to Mr X it uses a number of data sources to assess average speeds and data showed the average speeds of the road in question did not exceed 30mph.
9. Councils as highway authorities have powers to change traffic management and speed and parking restrictions. This is a power not a duty and they can only introduce changes by way of a traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Without a legal order any new traffic regulations and signs would not be enforceable.
10. The Council has properly considered Mr X’s request for traffic calming measures and explained why it will not introduce them. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision making and therefore I cannot criticise the outcome.
11. The Council said it has a Highways Improvement Plan (HIP). It advised Mr X that it would consider Automatic Traffic Counting (ATC) surveys if his local County Council member supported a review of the road.
12. It further addressed the matter of faded road markings with the Highways Manager. It said it would refresh the road markings. I am satisfied the Council has considered all options to address Mr X’s concerns and therefore we are unlikely to find fault and could not add to its response.
13. With regards to the matter about people driving dangerously, this would be a matter for the police who have powers to enforce against dangerous driving. The Council advised Mr X to report issues of dangerous or aggressive driving to the police force.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. It is also unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman