Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to establish a pedestrian crossing outside the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to establish a pedestrian crossing outside her home. She had been led to believe it would be placed at a different location which would allow her to have a dropped kerb. Ms X complains about a lack of notice and consultation and says the Council failed to respond. Ms X wants the Council to place the crossing somewhere else.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, email exchanges and evidence consultation letters were sent. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X wants a dropped kerb. Due to the current layout of the area she does not meet the criteria. Ms X saw plans, related to a development, which led her to believe changes would be made which would allow her to have a dropped kerb.
5. The Council decided to establish a pedestrian crossing outside Ms X’s home. The plan Ms X had seen placed the crossing at a different location.
6. Ms X objected to the crossing for various reasons; one objection was that it would stop her having a dropped kerb. Ms X said she had not received any notification about the proposal and neither had many of her neighbours.
7. The Council responded to Ms X’s points but said it would not change the location because it is the best position for use by pedestrians. It said it had considered other locations but they were unsuitable. The Council explained the plan Ms X had seen was an unapproved plan which was considered as one possible option; that plan was not approved and was not shared with Ms X by the Council. The Council said it had sent letters to residents about the crossing and invited comments. I have seen the comments and they include remarks from residents which show they received the letter. The Council told Ms X she would continue not to meet the criteria for a dropped kerb.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law gives the Council the power to establish pedestrian crossings and decide where to place them. The law also says it must publicise the proposal. Ms X says she did not get the letter. However, I have seen a copy of the letter, the list of addresses it was sent to (including Ms X's) and proof of posting. On balance, and because some people referred to the letter when commenting, I am satisfied the Council met its legal duties in terms of notification.
9. The Council is not required to change the decision based on comments received. But, it responded to Ms X to say why it had decided this is the best location and that the plan she had seen was unapproved; it also addressed her other points. The Council told me it considers objections and addresses them if possible – otherwise it proceeds as planned. Although the consultation period has ended the Council is still considering objections and is in the process of replying.
10. I appreciate Ms X is dissatisfied with the decisions about the crossing and the dropped kerb, and does not think the Council responded appropriately. But, I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation. The law gives councils the power to build crossings; we are not an appeal body and it is not our role to say where a council should place a crossing. The decision that Ms X will continue to be ineligible for a dropped kerb reflects the policy so, again, there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman