Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s installation of traffic calming measures on his road. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the position of new traffic calming measures installed by the Council. He wants the Council to do more to slow down vehicles using the road.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council installed traffic calming measures on Mr X’s road in 2018. Mr X supports the idea of slowing down traffic but believes the Council put the traffic calming measures in the wrong place. He says vehicles speed along the wrong and recent monitoring by the Council has confirmed this. Mr X is concerned about the safety of children in the area.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has explained the reasons it chose the location for the traffic calming measures and while Mr X disagrees with its decision, this is not evidence of fault. The Council is entitled to decide where to place traffic calming measures and it is not for us to question the merits of its decision.
7. Mr X believes the Council should now do more to address speeding on the road but it is under no duty to do so. It has installed the traffic calming measures as a way to reduce the number of speeding vehicles but it cannot control how drivers act. There are clear signs at the entrance of the 30mph zone both on the side of the road and the road surface itself and if drivers are failing to comply with the speed limit this is a matter for the police. There are plans to install more road signs to remind drivers of the speed limit and the Council is satisfied this is sufficient.
8. Mr X is concerned about the safety of children in the area but this is not a significant injustice resulting from fault by the Council. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint confirms the area does not have a history of accidents so any suggestion an accident will occur is highly speculative. It is also largely outside the Council’s control.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman