Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council, in respect of a sign adjacent to her property, did not properly consider all the impacts of the sign when it decided not to use a discretionary power to remove it. We have not found fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Devon County Council (the Council), in respect of a sign adjacent to her property, did not properly consider the full impact of the sign on their amenity when deciding not to remove the sign under section 69 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The failure to remove the sign has caused Mrs B and her family significant distress for a prolonged period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs B bought her property several years ago but was unaware at the point of purchase that the Council considered part of her land to be highways land maintainable at public expense (HMPE). She disagrees that the land is HMPE.
7. Towards the end of 2024 Mrs B’s neighbour erected a sign on land adjacent to her property directing traffic to turn on her land. Mrs B complained to her local councillor that this was the culmination of a neighbour dispute over four years.
8. The Council responded in early February 2025 saying it could not take action over the sign because it was on private land and was not a sign erected by the highways team. It suggested the district council may have powers to remove the sign under planning law. It also suggesting mediation for the neighbour dispute.
9. In mid-March 2025 a complaint was made to the police that Mrs B was parking cars and obstructing HMPE. The police took no further action when made aware that she owned the land and had parking rights over it.
10. Mrs B then asked the Council to change the designation of the land from HMPE and transfer ownership to her. The Council replied explaining that highway rights took precedence over other uses and could only be changed by two different legal processes. Mrs B had already tried one of these unsuccessfully and the other was too expensive.
11. Mrs B continued to complain to the Council. She said that it was only the Council who should have the authority to direct traffic and if the Council did not take any action to remove the misleading and dangerous sign, it was condoning it and would be accountable for any resulting trespass or damage to her property. She requested it take enforcement action under a number of different legal provisions.
12. The Council’s solicitor replied in July 2026 saying that the Council had no power to remove the sign unless it was objectively offensive and the Council would not accept liability as it was neither a council sign on council land nor erected by the Council.
13. Mrs B replied setting out the sections of law she felt were being breached, She threatened further legal action.
14. The Council responded at the end of September 2025. It said neither of the provisions from the Highways Act 1980 applied as the sign was not erected on highways land. It did not consider the sign looked official in nature. It did not consider it had the authority to remove the sign from her neighbour’s private land, and any such removal was likely to be challenged. It would find it difficult to justify the removal in legal terms.
15. The Council also considered section 69 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which gave the Council as traffic authority the power to notify the owner or occupier of any land on which there is an object or device for the guidance or direction of road users to remove it. The Council noted this was a discretionary power not a statutory duty and decided not to use it as the matter was primarily a neighbour dispute. It suggested Mrs B contact her MP or use a professional mediation service.
16. From September 2025 onwards Mrs B completed a diary documenting regular incidences of nuisance, trespass and antisocial behaviour. Many appeared to be by people connected to or aware of the neighbour dispute. Mrs B says that many were unconnected to the dispute and were following the directions on the sign.
17. In May 2026 the district council removed the sign under anti-social behaviour legislation. The Council had no role in this action and was not aware of it.

Findings

18. While I sympathise with Mrs B’s situation and the difficulties she experienced with her neighbour, I have not found fault in the way the Council dealt with this matter. Mrs B asked the Council to take action to remove the sign under various pieces of legislation. It concluded that only one section of law was applicable, but it only provided a discretionary power and did not require the Council to take action. The Council considered all the circumstances and decided not to take action because the situation appeared to be primarily a neighbour dispute rather than a highways problem and mediation or the district council may be a better route to take.
19. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
20. The Council has taken account of Mrs B’s arguments, considered the legal position in detail and concluded not to take the requested action. I have not found fault with that process and so I cannot say the decision is wrong or should be changed.
21. I am pleased that action has been taken by another organisation to resolve the problem.

Back to top

Decision

22. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman