Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council have managed the public highway outside her property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to address ongoing safety, accessibility and environmental risks outside her property. She says the Council has not taken effective action to manage unsafe parking, noise and vehicle-related pollution, despite these issues persisting over several years. Miss X says this has caused her distress, made her feel unsafe leaving her home and affected her enjoyment of her property. She wants the Council to reinstate the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to move parking away from her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council told Miss X it considered the safety concerns she raised. It said no personal injury accidents had occurred at the location in the past five years. On that basis, it could not prioritise the location under its casualty reduction programmes. The Council also explained that raising the kerb is impracticable because it would require a slope that could cause flooding to nearby properties. It said a higher kerb would not prevent vehicle overhang, vehicles mounting the kerb or structural strikes.
7. Miss X complained about nuisance from parked vehicles, including noise and pollution from idling engines. The Council explained to Miss X, it cannot enforce against pavement parking unless parking controls already apply. It also explained enforcement against idling vehicles is a matter for the police and responsibility for noise and pollution sits with the district council as the environmental health authority.
8. Miss X said she wants the Council to reinstate the proposed TRO. The Council confirmed it had not abandoned the TRO. It considered feedback and objections received during the consultation, including those from Miss X. The Council said it is amending the proposal and will readvertise it once it sets revised timescales.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. I am satisfied the Council considered Miss X’s concerns and explained its position. The available evidence does not show fault in how it reached its decisions or exercised its professional judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman