Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alteration of highway infrastructure outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for Mr X to submit an insurance claim against the Council and its contractor for causing damage to his property.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council removing pedestrian barriers from the corner outside his home without consulting him. He says his property is now left vulnerable to vehicles which may crash into it in future. He also claims that the road improvements outside his home have caused damage and cracking due to vibration from heavy machinery.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lives on a junction of a roundabout undergoing extensive re-design involving new pedestrian crossings, signals and carriageways. He says he was not consulted by the Council prior to it removing barriers which had been outside his home for some years. He says this has left his home vulnerable to vehicles which may crash into it in future.
7. The Council told Mr X that the barriers were never intended to protect his home from traffic and could not have done so. They were pedestrian guardrails intended to prevent pedestrians from attempting to cross the carriageway on a busy corner. It says that the new highway layout makes the barriers unnecessary due to the provisions of crossings and the re-alignment of the carriageways.
8. The scheme was subject to an independent road safety audit which did not identify the need for barriers. The Council says that it will carry out a further safety audit once the scheme is in operation.
9. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers under the Highways Act 1980 to introduce or remove highway infrastructure without the need for public consultation on each feature. It says it notified residents of the commencement of the works by letter and street notices but Mr X says he did not receive his letter.
10. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. The works were well publicised from when they were approved in 2020 and have featured in local press and the internet for some time. Mr X could have asked about details of the scheme prior to the works commencing.
11. Mr X complained to the Council about cracking and damage to his home which he says was caused by the use of heavy machinery outside. The Council advised him to submit a claim which will be handled by the contractor’s insurers. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes his powers also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alteration of highway infrastructure outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for Mr X to submit an insurance claim against the Council and its contractor for causing damage to his property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman