Summary: Mr X complained about the Council siting a pedestrian crossing signal on the footway close to his driveway. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council decided to site a pedestrian crossing outside his home over 10 years ago. The crossing has signals on posts which he says obstruct his safe access from his driveway onto the road. He says the signals are an eyesore and reduce the value of his home. He also says he collided with one of the posts which cost significant expense to repair his car. He wants the Council to move the signs to reduce the obstruction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and he has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council told Mr X over 10 years ago that it would be siting a pedestrian crossing on the highway outside his home. He objected to this because he said it will cause hazards when he exited from his driveway. The Council considered the crossing necessary because it is opposite a school on a busy road. It modified the proposals to include a smaller crossing which did not obstruct adjacent driveways.
5. When the Council erected crossing light signals Mr X complained that they obstructed his exit, were an eyesore and lowered the value of his home. Mr X collided with one of the posts causing damage to his car. He involved local councillors in an attempt to have the posts resited.
6. The Council says the location of the crossing is important for highway safety and there were accidents prior to its siting. The layout and signals are specified by highway regulations and it does not consider that his driveway is significantly obstructed.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached
8. In this case the Council is the highway authority and it has powers to determine where signs and traffic signals should be placed on highway land. It has given Mr X permission to cross the footway but it has no requirement to consider the value or visual impact on neighbouring property.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman