Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s notification and decision-making processes when deciding to install a pedestrian crossing on the road on which he lives. There is not enough evidence of Council fault affecting the outcome of its decision to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a road where the Council has decided it will install a pedestrian crossing. He complains the Council:
1. failed to properly and fairly communicate with residents about the proposed crossing;
2. referred to the wrong location in a report about the project;
3. failed to publish the information officers used to decide the crossing was needed.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:

• halt any work on the current crossing; and
• conduct a comprehensive feasibility study, consulting with all residents and attendees of nearby schools, on the best traffic calming scheme for the location; and
• do a full review to assess the impacts of a crossing on the community and the evidence of the need for one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online images and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. National legislation, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the 1984 Act), allows councils to install, alter or remove pedestrian crossings. It also places duties on them as to the processes they must follow when carrying out that work. They must consult with local police and give the public notice of the proposed crossing. Mr X and the Council’s documents refer to ‘notification’ and ‘consultation’, as if they are interchangeable. But the 1984 Act places no duty on councils to have a consultation with the public about pedestrian crossings, only to notify them of the planned works and provide an opportunity to comment. They must then take into account the feedback they receive.
8. To satisfy its notification duty, the Council published the notice in a local newspaper, put the plans online, displayed them at a local library and the Council offices. To follow its local policy and practice guidance on notifications, officers took further actions to notify the public in the vicinity of the proposed crossing.
9. The Council accepts one of the documents it issued during the notification referred once to a different project in its area, not the proposed crossing. We cannot say that if this had not happened the results of the notification process would have been so altered that the outcome with the crossing would also have been different. There is not enough evidence this error would have led to the crossing not being installed. The power to make the decision on the crossing remained with the Council, as conferred by the 1984 Act.
10. Officers gathered the responses to the notification, which included comments from Mr X. A large majority of responses were in favour. The officers decided to proceed with the crossing scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s notification process and its consideration of the feedback received here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to proceed with the crossing. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mr X complains the Council did not publish all the information officers used to form their view on the need for the crossing, such as safety, pedestrian and traffic data. It would not be fault for a council not to provide to residents all data used during its assessment of a scheme. Councils should provide additional data if requested, which it did when Mr X asked. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to warrant us investigating.
12. Mr X wants the Council to stop any further work on installing the pedestrian crossing then do fresh reports and assessments. We cannot order councils to halt works on their highways or do new appraisals on matters they have already determined. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault affecting the outcome of its decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman