Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to consult the public before upgrading traffic lights outside his home. He also complains he could not discuss his concerns in private and the Council has wasted public money. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault. Nor is further investigation likely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X complains about the following:
• The Council installed traffic lights outside his home with no warning or consultation
• Officers misled councillors that consultation had been carried out
• The Council squandered public funds on unnecessary road works
• Officers subject to the complaint were involved in the complaints process; and
• Officers insisted Mr X discuss his complaint in a public place and refused to allow him access to a private room.
2. Mr X wants:
• Traffic lights outside his home removed
• An apology from the Council
• Proper governance enforced
• Officers investigated and disciplined
• Damage to his property repaired
• Compensation for loss of property value
• Officers forbidden to conduct business in the public foyer of the Council building

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
5. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

6. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered the Highways Act 1980.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic lights

8. Mr X complained to the Council that new traffic lights had been installed at the junction outside his home without prior consultation. He says they are unsightly, obscure his view, change the atmosphere of his local environment, and have caused his property to lose value. He also says work took place before 6am including over the weekend which disturbed him.
9. The Council has confirmed the traffic lights are an upgrade to the previous arrangement which was coming to the end of its life. It also included a needed pedestrian crossing.
10. These arrangements formed part of the Council’s Local Transport Plan which was approved by the Cabinet in June 2019.
11. Mr X says the Council did not consult on the scheme and discovering the new arrangement when he returned home from abroad was a shock. However, the guidance for traffic authorities on using traffic signs says:

“There are no legal consultation requirements for a traffic signal junction. If the design incorporates banned movements or other restrictions, then these will require Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) which must be made following the procedures set out in the relevant regulations.”

12. The guidance goes on to say, “the Department strongly recommends that authorities engage with local residents and others affected by proposed works”.
13. In its response to Mr X, the Council says while it carries out consultations on proposals for new traffic signal arrangements, it does not consult on schemes when it is upgrading existing arrangements. However, following his complaint it will considering doing so.
14. Without a statutory requirement for the Council to consult on schemes to upgrade existing equipment, I cannot criticise the Council for not doing so.
15. Mr X says the new traffic lights produce a glare which is intrusive to his home. And the contractors damaged his wall during the installation process. The Council says it has visited the site and fitted louvres to the lights to stop the glare. It explains it cannot fit louvres to red lights due to safety reasons. Therefore, the signals have been refocussed to prevent glare from the red lights.
16. It also says its contractor visited Mr X’s property to inspect the alleged damage. The contractor could not find any damage. Unfortunately, Mr X was abroad and the person at his home had no knowledge of the matter. The contractor left his contact details for Mr X to contact him on his return to the country.
17. I consider this to be a suitable response to these concerns. The Council has acted to prevent glare, and Mr X has the details of the contractor should he wish to pursue the matter of alleged damage.
18. The Council has advised the contractors were required to carry out the work early to minimise disruption. However, its instructions were not to start before 6am. The Council has offered to investigate this matter further should Mr X provide evidence of work taking place before this time.

Spending Council Funds

19. Mr X complains the Council has squandered public money on what he considers are expensive unsocial hours working, and on a more-than-necessary complement of traffic signals. Mr X says the unnecessary spending is a loss to the public purse which affects everyone and him, as a council taxpayer.
20. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which affect all or most residents in the Council area. Allegations of misspent taxpayer funds is a matter which affects all residents, not just Mr X. Therefore, I cannot consider this part of the complaint.

Complaints procedure

21. Mr X complains that officers who were the subject of his complaint took part in the investigation and response. And that officers insisted he use the telephone on the reception desk to discuss his concerns, refusing to allow him to discuss his complaint in a private room.
22. The Ombudsman does not usually look at the way a complaint has been considered in isolation. We consider both procedure and the original complaint. If we consider the original complaint is not something that we would investigate, then we will not usually investigate the complaint about the complaints process. We do not consider there can be enough injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints procedure alone to warrant our involvement.
23. Mr X is concerned that officers named in his complaint were involved in the response. However, the Council’s stage 2 review of his complaint was carried out by a senior manager and the customer feedback officer. I do not consider involving any specific officers during the process caused a significant personal injustice which warrants an Ombudsman investigation.
24. I also note Mr X wants disciplinary proceedings brought against the officers involved. Schedule 5, paragraph 4 of the Local Government Act 1974 specifically prevents the Ombudsman from involving himself in personnel matters. We cannot direct the Council to subject officers to disciplinary proceedings as we cannot intervene in the Council’s actions as an employer.
25. When he visited the Council offices Mr X asked to speak to an officer. He used the telephone at the reception desk in the foyer. Mr X complains he was not offered a private room to discuss his concerns.
26. The Council apologised there was no private area available for Mr X to discuss his concerns when he visited the civic centre. It explained the civic centre is its corporate reception and is not equipped for customer service queries. Had he contacted the Council before visiting the civic centre, he would have been advised to visit one of the Council’s local customer service centres. These have private booths where he could have discussed his concerns. Alternatively, he could have made an appointment to speak to the relevant officer in advance.
27. I do not consider the Council is at fault for failing to provide a private room for Mr X. If he were uncomfortable discussing his concerns on the telephone at the reception desk, he could have made an appointment to meet privately on a future date. He did not.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the lack of consultation on the traffic lights. There is no statutory requirement to consult before upgrading traffic signals. The Council has resolved the issue of glare from the new lights and provided contact details should Mr X want to pursue his allegation the Council damaged his wall.
29. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking as we cannot:
• require the Council to remove the new lights
• require the Council to discipline any individual officers
• forbid officers to discuss matters in the civic office foyer
• consider matters which affect all or most residents in the Council’s area
30. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome or that we can add to the investigation already completed by the Council.,

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman