Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is failing to keep highway signs clear and readable and not obscured by tree branches. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and the Council has agreed to review the situation at one location of concern.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is failing to fulfil its statutory duty to maintain clear road signs. He says signs in the area are obscured by overgrown tree branches making it difficult or impossible to read and in his experience this is a national problem. Mr X says in recent months he has reported signs to the Council, and nothing has changed at the locations. Mr X says this could be a danger to highway users and one sign which is not clear is to a hospital’s A&E. Mr X wants the Council to maintain signs properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the Council’s complaint replies dated November 2021 and January 2022. The Council has provided 6 months of highway inspection records at the location of concern near the M4 bridge/Wroughton and a photograph of the signs to the hospital

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
5. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X to investigate and the Council has said it will check the position at the location of concern which is acceptable. An inspector will review the hospital sign position. The Council says it believes the trees close to one sign are on private land. It would write to the owner who has the responsibility to cut back. The photograph shows there is a second sign to the hospital nearby which is clear and not affected. The highways records log Mr X’s two reports and indicate they were considered albeit the Council says no defect was raised.
6. The Council is entitled to prioritise work when it does not have enough money to do everything. The Council has explained highway inspectors inspect roads and paths monthly and it sets priorities on safety grounds. This means that potholes have greater priority. The Council has also said that due to the cost of sign repairs it tries to do a variety of work at the same time. Mr X tells me when he has reported potholes the Council has done a repair which he calls a ‘temporary fix’.
7. If Mr X wishes to pursue the matter further he can raise with his local councillors who set the Council’s budget and priorities.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is failing to keep highway signs clear and readable and not obscured by tree branches. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and the Council has agreed to review the situation at one location of concern.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman