Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council treated his contacts about highway safety on his road as a complaint, did not independently review his concerns, and the criteria it uses to decide whether to do highway safety works. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s highways or complaints processes to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a road where he is concerned about traffic speed and where there have been several collisions. He complains the Council:
1. treated his correspondence as a complaint when he wanted a dialogue about the matter;
2. did not independently review his concerns because it used its own complaint process;
3. has used unacceptable criteria to decide not to make changes to the road’s speed limits.
2. Mr X says the Council shut down his concerns and his ability to represent the road’s residents about the traffic by treating the matter as a complaint. He considers the Council should attend local Parish Council meetings, speak with him and the residents of the road about finding a solution to the speeding and use different criteria to decide whether to take action regarding speeding traffic.

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 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 continue 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; 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 and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We note Mr X has focused his complaint to us on how the Council dealt with his concerns as a complaint within its own process. However, the issue at the core of the matter is the Council’s response to his requests for highway works to reduce speeding on his road. Were it not for this issue, he would not have been in contact with the Council.
7. 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.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns about speeds on his road, the Council reviewed the incident history there. They gathered highways and police information about traffic events. Officers referred to the Council’s adopted policy on how it decides which areas should receive resources to fund highway works. They found Mr X’s road had experienced various incidents but that none of them were of sufficient seriousness, within the context of its wider area, to receive enough priority under their policy to attract funding for works. The Council reached its view that its limited resources are better focused elsewhere in its wider area.
9. Officers gathered and assessed relevant information and decided not to currently prioritise highway measures on Mr X’s road to reduce speed limits. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. We note Mr X considers the Council’s criteria for assessing which highway works to do where, based on the number and seriousness of incidents, is wrong. But the Council was entitled to adopt this approach within its highways works policy, to base its decisions on available incident data. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s adoption and use of this policy and approach to justify an investigation.
11. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to treat Mr X’s concerns about its decision on traffic measures as a complaint to justify an investigation. It is not reasonable for someone with a concern, which is a highways campaign rather than a complaint, to expect a council to maintain dialogue on a matter officers consider they have already dealt with. Councils are entitled to seek to bring such situations to a head through their complaint process by providing their final response and position. Even if there had been fault by the Council on this issue, we will not investigate. The injustice Mr X claims is that the Council is not allowing him to have an ongoing dialogue with officers about his highways concerns. That is not such a significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating.
12. It is also not fault for the Council to have used its own officers to administer its internal complaints process. There is no requirement here for the Council to commission and use its funds on independent reviews of its service as part of its complaint process.
13. We note Mr X wants the Council to attend meetings of his local parish council, speak with him about the highways issues and change its criteria for prioritising highway works. The Council already has a designated officer who may attend the parish council. It is for the officers and their employee to decide on their attendances on other bodies. We cannot order Council officers to attend more frequently or in greater numbers. We also cannot order the Council’s officers to speak with Mr X on highways matter. Nor can we tell the Council which criteria to apply when deciding where to use its highways resources. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process when deciding whether to act regarding the traffic issues on his road to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient evidence of Council fault in its decision to deal with his concerns through its internal complaints process, nor how it applied that process, to justify an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman