Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing cones from the public highway. There is no fault in the Council removing Mr X’s cones, nor in how it has dealt with cones placed by other residents on the highway. Even if the Council were not removing all others’ cones, that would not cause injustice to Mr X warranting our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property accessed from a road going through a residential area. There is a dropped kerb allowing access. Mr X placed two traffic cones on the highway, on either side of the dropped kerb, to mark out the access.
2. Mr X complains the Council removed his traffic cones but is allowing others’ cones protecting parking spaces to remain. He says problems with the access being blocked by parked cars have returned now the Council has cleared the cones. He wants the Council to remove other people’s cones from the highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X does not have authorisation from the Council to place his cones on the highway to mark out the dropped kerb. It is not fault for the Council to have removed his cones as they obstruct the highway. Mr X’s injustice of his access sometimes being blocked is being caused by inconsiderate drivers, not by the Council.
6. Mr X’s says the Council has not been consistent in its approach to such obstructions because it has not removed cones being placed on the highway by other people in the area. The Council says it has removed them. Mr X says they are still there. It is not fault by the Council if other residents have replaced their cones, requiring officers to return and remove them again. There is not enough evidence here of the Council treating Mr X differently from his neighbours. Where it has identified a highway obstruction, it has removed them. In any event, even if the Council were not removing other people’s cones, that would not be a personal injustice to Mr X justifying us investigating. Another person’s good fortune in being able to keep their cones on the highway would not be Mr X’s injustice.
7. If Mr X wants the dropped kerb to be indicated to drivers, he may wish to apply to the Council for a road marking, such as a white ‘H-bar’. But such markings are only advisory and not enforceable by the Council. If Mr X has future issues with drivers blocking the dropped kerb, he may wish to report that to the police.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it is not fault for the Council to remove Mr X’s unauthorised cones from the highway; and
• there is not enough evidence to show the Council is not also removing unauthorised cones placed on the highway by other residents; and
• even if the Council were not removing all other cones, that would not cause a personal injustice to Mr X warranting our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman