Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to introduce additional safety measures on a rural road where he lives. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council refusing to act on his concerns about road safety on an unclassified rural road where he lives. He says the road is a danger to pedestrians and that it should take his concerns seriously.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives on a rural road which has no footways and he says pedestrians are in danger from traffic. He wants the Council to introduce traffic calming measures, cut back overhead vegetation and ensure the road is gritted and speeds are reduced for pedestrian safety.
5. He asked the Council to consider these measures and it told him that the current safety measures are adequate for an unclassified road and classified roads take priority for resources. The Council says the road does not have a high incidence of injury accidents according to the Police database. The speed limit is currently 30mph which is appropriate for this road. The road, like many rural roads has no footways and signs advise motorists that they may encounter pedestrians.
6. Council highway authorities have to prioritise how they use their resources and an unclassified road would not receive a disproportionate amount of improvement compared with classified roads with more traffic and greater safety implications.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case there is no evidence that the Council has failed to explain its highway policy to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. Subject to any comments Mr X might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman