Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to replace bollards outside the complainant’s home or introduce traffic calming measures. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his concerns about road safety issues where he lives. In particular, he says the Council has removed bollards which prevented vehicles from striking his home.

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.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We do provide an appeal against a decision by a council and cannot question whether a 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

6. Mr B says there were three bollards on the footway outside his home which prevented it being struck by vehicles.
7. Mr B believes there is also a need for traffic calming measures to prevent drivers breaking the 30 mph speed limit. He has been writing to the Council about this since 2017. The Council did not ignore Mr B’s concerns but explained why it did not consider any new traffic calming measures were required.
8. In October 2018 a car travelling at high speed struck the bollards, causing damage to them. The Council decided that, rather than repair the bollards, it would remove them.
9. Mr B complained to the Council that removal of the bollards would remove his only defence against vehicles striking his home. He says the number of times this has happened shows that other traffic calming measures are necessary.
10. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council explained the bollards were not intended to protect his home and limit the space available for pedestrians on a pavement that is already narrow. It said there was no record of accidents causing personal injury in the previous five years. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint and he complained to us.

Analysis

11. I do not consider the Council has ignored Mr B’s concerns. I am satisfied it has considered them and provided a full response. Although I recognise Mr B does not agree with the Council’s decision, I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council made it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman