Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to remove a speed hump feature which she says leads to vibration in her home when buses pass over it. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council has refused to remove a speed hump near her home which is causing disturbance and possible damage to homes from vibration. She wants the Council to replace the feature with a different form of traffic calming which causes less vibration.

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)

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X says she has experienced vibration in her home since she bought it in 2018. She has complained a number of times about the vibration which is caused when buses pass over a speed hump in the road. She says the vibration can be felt in nearby homes and that she is concerned that cracking in her home may be due to this.
6. Mrs X and other residents asked the Council to remove the feature, particularly after is began to deteriorate with use. The Council told her that the speed cushion was a requirement of the planning approval for the development and it is there to slow traffic in the area. It says the vibration and damage to the feature may be due to buses travelling too fast over it.
7. The Council says it has reminded public transport operators of the need to maintain the speed limit but it will not remove the feature because of the safety requirements.
8. The Council is the highway authority and it must decide what traffic calming features should be provided on the highway. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. If there has been no flaw in the process through which a decision has been taken the Ombudsman has no power to challenge the merits of the decision itself.
9. If Mrs X has evidence that the vibration is causing cracking to her home, she could submit a claim to the Council’s insurers.

Back to top

Final decision

We 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