Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to repair damaged or missing pavement safety tactiles which have caused a potential danger to visually impaired people. Mr X also complained the Council’s approach to completing road repairs indirectly discriminated against visually impaired people. We found fault with the Council for failing to consider the full powers at its disposal to repair defects caused by utility companies and for failing to encourage utility companies to install utility covers with inlays for safety tactiles. The Council agreed to remind staff about the powers at its disposal and reviews its processes about encouraging utility providers. The Council also agreed to review the implementation of some of the tactiles installed on Derby Street for compliance with government guidance and in consideration of its Public Sector Equality Duty. We did not find fault with the Council’s general approach to highway repairs and did not find evidence of indirect discrimination towards visually impaired people.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to repair damaged, or replace missing, pavement safety tactiles he has reported to it since March 2023.
2. Mr X says the failure to repair or replace these tactiles causes a danger to visually impaired people.
3. Mr X says the Council has a policy which precludes pavement repairs for at least two years which causes an indirect disability discrimination to visually impaired people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
9. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated Mr X’s individual concerns about damaged safety tactiles and the Council’s failure to repair or replace these tactiles. I have also investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council taking an approach which he says causes an indirect discrimination to visually impaired people.
11. I have not investigated the road design layout itself for installation of the safety tactiles or the consultation process the Council took. This is because the Council carried out this consultation process in 2014. This happened ten years before Mr X brought his complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.
12. I have also not been able to investigate Mr X’s concerns about a lack of essential pedestrian crossings or inadequate/unsuitable pedestrian refuges. The reason for this is that the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that affect all or most people in the Council area. Nor can the Ombudsman instruct a council to install new pedestrian crossings or traffic lights. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to direct a council how to design or plan its road system.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

Equality Act

15. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
16. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
17. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.

Tactile Paving

18. The Department for Transport Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces details that tactile paving should be installed correctly and consistently to prevent confusion for visually impaired people.
19. The guidance says councils should ensure maintenance of tactile paving as this is crucial to their effectiveness. The guidance says that councils should monitor the condition of tactile paving surfaces and to plan for their replacement as part of maintenance programmes.
20. This guidance also details how and when different tactiles should be used. It details the following:
• Blister surface tactiles should only be used at designated pedestrian crossing points. Its general purpose is to provide a warning to vision impaired people who, in the absence of an upstand greater than 25mm high, may otherwise find it difficult to determine where a footway ends and carriageway begins. A secondary use is to guide people near to controlled crossing points to the crossing point itself.
• Corduroy hazard warning surfaces convey a message of “hazard, proceed with caution” to people. The purpose is to warn vision impaired people of specific hazards including steps, level crossings, approaches to Light Rapid Transport platforms and transition from footways to areas shared with other users such as cycle paths.
• Guidance path surfaces are to guide vision impaired people along a route or around obstacles when traditional cues are not available. This is designed so people can be guided along the route either by walking on the tactile surface or maintaining contact with a long cane. These can be used where traditional cues, such as kerb edge, are absent.
21. This guidance also outlines the layout of blister surfaces can be disrupted by inspection covers installed by utility companies which can cause confusion for vision impaired people. The guidance says local authorities should “encourage” utility companies, where possible, to provide covers that can be converted to take blister surface inlays.

Works on council roads and pavements

22. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 outlines the duty on people who complete works on the highways. Section 70 outlines the undertaker of the works must reinstate the street. The Act outlines that any permanent reinstatement should occur within six months of the initial interim fix following works, or such other period of time as agreed with the local authority. Any permanent reinstatement should include reinstatement of design features to assist people with a disability.
23. The Act details that any undertaker who fails to comply would be come liable for conviction to a fine.
24. Section 72 of the Act says that a local authority may issue a notice to require an undertaker who has failed to carry out necessary remedial works for reinstatement within a period of no less than 7 working days. Should the undertaker fail to carry out such works, the local authority may complete the works itself and recover any costs from the undertaker of the works. And, if the local authority considers the unremedied works dangerous, it need not give notice to the undertaker.
25. The Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways, 2020, issued by the Department of Transport details the responsibility of those carrying out street works. This guidance details the undertaker of works should remove and restore tactile paving in their original locations before opening the highway to traffic and pedestrians. This guidance says advice can be sought from the local authority about this.

Council’s highway safety and inspection code of practice

26. The Council’s code of practice details how the Council will fulfil its duty to maintain the fabric of the public highway.
27. The Council’s policy outlines that it will complete safety inspections of the adopted highway at regular intervals to identify hazards and make these hazards safe. The Council utilises a risk management approach to determine the nature and speed of response required by the Council in repairing a defect. The Council categorises defects into four risk groups.
28. The Council’s policy outlines that a Highway Inspector’s on-site judgement should consider all circumstances relating to a defect and the degree of risk it presents.
29. The policy also provides guidelines to the inspectors to consider the needs of vulnerable road users, including the disabled, when considering any defects on the highway.

What happened

30. On 16 March 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the state of pavements in the Council area and how this impacted him as a visually impaired person. Mr X detailed his concerns and provided photographs of his findings. Mr X said:
• Guidance tactiles have been installed haphazardly with their continuity broken up by utility access panels;
• Tactiles installed are not fulfilling their intended purpose as they are installed near curbs, limiting space through parked cars and, on market days, stalls and some lead directly into roads;
• There are a large number of blister tactiles that are severely damaged which are a hazard;
• Major junctions have no filtering provisions for pedestrians;
• The Council has allocated shared spaces on pavements for car parking which is not clear to visually impaired people;
• There is a lack of consistency in blister tactiles indicating a dropped kerb and there are a number of dropped kerbs without these tactiles and many dropped kerbs with damaged tactiles.
• He wanted to know if the Council consulted disabled experts when the road layout was altered as the government guidance states such consultations should take place.
31. On 12 April 2023, National Grid completed an interim reinstatement of a pavement on Derby Street but did not replace the blister tactiles.
32. On 13 April 2023, the Council responded to Mr X to advise it had raised this matter with the head of highways and hoped to meet with Mr X to discuss these matters after 4 May 2023.
33. Mr X provided a photograph to the Council on 21 April 2023 showing pavement tactiles had been replaced by tarmac in one instance, on Derby Street. Mr X said this was an example of a wider problem.
34. On 1 August 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to advise the tarmac replacement for the tactiles on Derby Street had still not been rectified but now had the word “temp” spray painted on it. Mr X said whoever dug up the tactiles had a legal obligation to replace the tactiles. Mr X also raised concerns about a fence blocking access to a pavement on only one side of the road on Haywood Street resulting in him being stuck after crossing from the other side.
35. The Council passed Mr X’s concerns onto its highways team to investigate on 2 August 2023. The highways team advised it passed this on to the Traffic and Network Management team to ensure the respective utility companies completed permanent reinstatements of the tactiles.
36. On 4 August 2023, the Council responded about the fence on Haywood Street to advise this fence was to prevent pedestrians from stepping onto the road or being nudged onto it. The Council said this was also designed to direct people to the purposefully designed and controlled pedestrian crossing points.
37. On 24 September 2023, Mr X contacted the Council again to advise the pavement on Derby Street had not been repaired to date. Mr X referred to legislation which said the tactiles should have been reinstated within six months and, until then, the unsafe bit of pavement should not have been open to the public. Mr X also pointed to vans repeatedly parked over dropped kerbs and utility companies, which are supposed to be overseen by the Council, leaving signs on pavements after works have finished.
38. On 11 January 2024, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr X said:
• The Council’s policies and procedures have resulted in a misuse of safety tactile paving and has led to a repeated failure to maintain such paving to a safe standard.
• The Council was indirectly discriminating against visually impaired people through its policies and procedures over repair of the pavements because the standards of the repairs put visually impaired people at a severe disadvantage compared to non-disabled individuals.
• He had reported issues to the Council over a number of months with photographic evidence but the Council has failed to repair the issues.
• He has concerns the Council has implemented a two-year pause on any pavement works which could present a serious potential danger to disabled users.
• He has reported many times tactile paving being replaced by tarmac by utility companies since April 2023 which remains in place. Mr X said the utility company had a statutory duty to make this pavement safe within six months.
• Blister tactiles have been left in such a damaged state, or inadequately maintained, they pose a danger to visually impaired people. This is a consistent problem across the Council area.
• Utility panels have been installed on tactile areas without continuity of the tactile surface which is against government guidance.
• He had concerns the Council failed to consult relevant professionals when designing the new pavement layout in 2014.
• Safety guidance tactiles guide visually impaired people into lamp posts and on some occasions into roads.
• The lack of basic maintenance and repairs of pavements creates a clear and obvious hazard putting visually impaired people in danger.
• None of the three major junctions have adequate pedestrian crossing facilities.
39. On 8 April 2024, the Council provided a Stage 1 complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• Mr X’s complaint referred to a number of specific locations which the Council has forwarded on to the relevant teams to ensure necessary works are scheduled.
• It cannot provide a timescale for the repairs as they will be carried out “as soon as resources allow”.
• It can confirm the Council is not implementing a large-scale footway resurfacing scheme because of the extensive works by utility companies to install broadband service upgrades. The Council said this embargo does not include routine repairs required in localised areas.
• The Council will continue to encourage utility companies to provide inspection covers that can accommodate tactile paving inlays to reduce conflicting or confusing information for visually impaired people.
• It has reviewed the scheme from ten years ago when it completed an impact assessment for re-design of the pavements. This impact assessment confirmed “Guide Dogs for the Blind” and the “Staffordshire Public Access Network Group” had been consulted as part of this assessment.
• It also completed a Quality Audit of the implemented scheme in which there is specific reference to the location of street furniture with respect to visually impaired pedestrians. The Quality Audit confirmed the design could not accommodate the ideal clearance space for street furniture due to other considerations including buried service and the provision of a minimum “standard” footway surface.
• It considered the needs of the visually impaired were appropriately considered in the design of the street improvements.
• There are no formal crossing points on the road with the fence on one side promoting people to cross the road. However, the Council accepted that the fence does present a potential hazard for unsuspecting visually impaired pedestrians crossing from the other side of the road.
• It had raised concerns about the pedestrian facilities around the town centre at major junctions with the relevant team. They advised the major junctions are over-capacity in terms of vehicle movement and introducing formal pedestrian phases would increase traffic congestion. This situation is continuing to be monitored.
• The Council did not consider it had failed to meet its duty under the equality act and has considered the impact on visually impaired people through is development and delivery of its pavements.
40. On 27 April 2024, Mr X requested consideration of his complaint at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. Mr X said:
• The Council is bound by both the Equality Act and the Public Sector Equality Duty when considering the pavement designs and upkeep.
• The Council failed to answer the core point of his complaint which was whether the Council has indirectly discriminated against visually impaired people as described in the Equality Act.
• The Council had failed to provide any timescales for repairs despite it having a statutory duty to maintain the highway to a safe standard. This included the temporary tarmac repair of tactiles which he reported to the Council in March 2023 which remains unrepaired.
• Despite the Council’s decision not to implement large scale footway resurfacing because of the extensive excavation works by utility companies, the utility companies still have a statutory duty to replace tactiles and the Council has a duty to oversee, and if necessary enforce, this.
• The Council should be “insisting” rather than “encouraging” utility companies to use tactile paving inspection covers to fulfil their statutory duties. The Council should be anticipating these problems under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• He wanted to know the specific advice the Guide Dogs for the Blind provided about safety tactiles for the 2014 consultation.
• He accepts the town has inevitable problem areas for visually impaired people but questioned why the guidance tactiles had been used on the edge of pavements as this served no purpose and endangered visually impaired people.
• The Council’s highways department seems to favour the interests of vehicular traffic at the expense of pedestrian traffic.
41. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 23 July 2024. The Council said:
• The Stage 1 complaint response upheld Mr X’s complaint about the timeliness of the repairs to the identified area of tactile paving and committed to arrange for any necessary works to be taken as soon as resources allow.
• It adopts national best practice when identifying and prioritising defect repairs. It repairs the most urgent problems in a matter of days but says it is not generally practicable, cost effective or affordable to coordinate repairs for less urgent repairs while higher risks issues on the network are there.
• The short-term pause on footway schemes does not affect isolated footway safety repairs which it is continuing to prioritise repairs to on a risk-based approach.
• This short-term pause also does not prevent statutory undertakers from completing reinstatements of the correct specification and in accordance with statutory guidance. The Council said it has been pursuing National Grid to repair the temporary tarmac Mr X has complained about. The Council said it understood these repairs were scheduled to take place by the end of the month.
• It had provided copies of the impact assessments and quality audit of the pavement scheme from 2014 but it no longer has available to it the specific records of advice provided by individual organisations.
• The assessments and audit show the Council considered the impact of the designs on people with disabilities to anticipate and mitigate problems. The Council is committed to meeting its duty under the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty.
• The tactile dropped crossings provide a guide to visually impaired people when it is safe to cross the road. On the street with the fence on one side there are no such crossing points which minimises the risk of visually impaired people attempting to cross the road and becoming trapped by the fence.
• The Council must consider its statutory responsibilities to both pedestrians and motorists.
• While it upholds Mr X’s complaint about the timeliness of repairs, it does not uphold the other aspects of Mr X’s complaint. The Council said it does not consider it has indirectly discriminated against visually impaired people and appropriate measures and consultations have taken place.
42. On 31 July 2024, Mr X wrote to his councillor to advise he believes the Council installed the incorrect tactiles on one of the streets. Mr X says the Council has installed “guidance” tactiles rather than “corduroy” tactiles at the edge of the pavement.
43. As part of regular routine inspections of the Council’s network, the Council found repairs needed on Derby Street in September 2024 and on Ashbourne road in January 2025. Both these pavements were ones Mr X had complained about. The Council repaired both by February 2025.

Analysis

General Repairs

44. Mr X complained to the Council about maintenance issues with various pavements on the Council’s network. This included an interim repair completed by National Grid on Derby street which I will address under the section titled “Utility Repairs”.
45. In the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response it committed to looking into the repair of the issues raised by Mr X. The Council has evidenced a Highway Officer completed an inspection of each of the sites Mr X raised for concerns in the week commencing 22 April 2024. The Council also accepted in its complaint response that it had failed to address the repair works sooner. Since the Council has already accepted fault for this, I do not need to re-investigate this finding of fault.
46. The Council’s Highway Officer decided there was no actionable defects that met the County Council’s intervention thresholds for necessary works for the streets.
47. The Council has also shown that it completed monthly inspections of each of the roads Mr X complained about since April 2024 and continued to find no actionable defects except for Ashbourne Road and Derby Street.
48. When the Council found an actionable defect on Derby Street, in September 2025 and Ashbourne Road, in January 2025, it repaired both by February 2025.
49. The Council has shown that it is keeping its pavement network under general review and is completing repairs on its network when it finds an actionable defect. The decision about what is an actionable defect is a merits decision by the Council Officers. It is not the place of the Ombudsman to question the professional opinion of the Council’s Highway Officers.
50. The Council is taking suitable steps to monitor its pavement network and completing repairs as it finds these to be actionable. The Ombudsman cannot find fault with the Council’s actions in this respect.
51. The Council has also noted that it keeps the blister tactiles on the crossing on Ashbourne Road under review as part of its monthly safety inspection. While I do not find fault with the Council, I would recommend the Council provides Mr X with an update about its consideration about whether it should repair the tactiles on the crossing on Ashbourne Road following the next monthly inspection.
52. Mr X has raised concerns the Council is indirectly discriminating against people with visual impairments by deciding not to complete certain repairs. Mr X has said the Council’s prioritising of risk factors in repairs does not consider visually impaired people but only non-visually impaired people.
53. While I understand Mr X’s concerns about this, there is no evidence the Council is failing to consider the risks to visually impaired people. The Council’s inspection code makes specific instructions to Highway Officers for them to take particular consideration of the needs of disabled people when completing their inspections. Councils also do not have the resources to fix all potential damage and must prioritise higher risk repairs first. The Council has shown that it has completed repairs on pavements for both general repair issues and those specifically related to tactiles. Inevitably, there will be some repairs the Council’s Highway Officers will consider non-actionable during their inspections. These are decisions the Council’s Highway Officers are entitled to take and ones I have not seen evidence of them making in a discriminatory manner.

Utility Repairs

54. Mr X made a particular complaint to the Council about the interim repairs on Derby Street. Mr X said the utility company removed tactiles and failed to replace these.
55. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of utility companies and can only investigate the actions of the Council. While utility companies have 6 months, or a suitable agreed timescale with the Council, to complete repair of the highway following utility works, this is the responsibility of the utility company. I cannot comment on the actions of the utility company and can only decide if the Council has taken suitable action in line with its responsibility.
56. National Grid, removed the tactiles on 12 April 2023. The Council agreed for the repair works to be completed by National Grid on 6 November 2023. While this was slightly over six months, it was a prescribed timescale and only slightly above the normal six-month timescale.
57. While the 6 November 2023 was the original agreed date, National Grid pushed back the repair works three times in 2023 and agreed a new date of 8-10 January 2024. The Council attended to inspect the repair works on 22 May 2024 and noted National Grid had failed to complete the repair works and chased them accordingly. National Grid completed the repair works on 19 July 2024.
58. The Council has shown it completed suitable actions by raising incomplete repair works with National Grid and warning it of potential fines if it failed to complete the repair works. The Council has also shown it kept this matter under regular review with National Grid with the view to repairs being completed as soon as possible.
59. Overall, I do not find fault with how the Council handled this matter in following up with National Grid. It is clear the repair works were completed outside the six-month allowed timescale and outside the Council’s agreed timescale with National Grid. However, this is not something the Council was at fault for.
60. Similarly, since National Grid completed the works, it also was responsible for ensuring the area was safe to open before completing the permanent repairs. National Grid did not consult with the Council about this so the Council had no opportunity to provide input on this matter. As above, this was a National Grid decision and beyond the scope of the Ombudsman to investigate.
61. While I have not found fault with the Council’s actions, the Council has told the Ombudsman it could not force National Grid to act sooner and its powers were limited to issuing fines. While the Council could not force National Grid to complete the repairs, the Council does have powers available to it to complete the repair works itself and bill the utility provider for these works. The Council has not shown any consideration about whether it should take such action and its response to our enquiries shows a lack of awareness of this power.
62. The Council should remind staff about the need to consider the full powers available to it when deciding how to ensure utility providers complete highway repairs.

Utility Panels with tactile inserts

63. Councils should be encouraging utility companies to use utility covers which allow for inlays to install relevant tactile inserts. Mr X has provided numerous examples of utility covers which break up tactile surfaces.
64. The Council has advised that utility companies are responsible for their own covers and are responsible for the decision about what to install. This is correct and, as previously detailed, I cannot investigate the actions of the utility providers.
65. Despite the information from the Council’s complaint responses, it has shown me no consideration of encouraging utility companies to install covers which can be used to install tactiles surfaces. While the Council cannot force utility providers to take any particular action in this respect, it should be encouraging them.
66. The Council should review its processes and policies to ensure it is, where possible, encouraging utility companies to install utility covers which allow for complimentary tactile surfaces.

Derby Street tactiles on the kerb edge

67. As explained in paragraph 11, I cannot investigate the Council’s design for Derby Street produced in 2014.
68. However, I can investigate whether the tactiles currently in place are suitable or present a danger and the Council’s decision making about not changing these tactiles.
69. The Council installed guidance tactiles on the kerb edge on Derby Street. Mr X said this was an improper use of such tactiles and the Council should have instead installed hazard tactiles to warn of the road danger.
70. The Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces produced by the Department for Transport does not detail a trafficked carriageway as a specific example for a situation in which hazard tactiles should be installed. As such, the use of guidance tactiles for the kerb edge in this instance, directing people in either direction away from the carriageway, could be a suitable use of such tactiles.
71. Given there is no clear and apparent error in the Council’s decision to retain these tactiles, when considering the government guidance, the Ombudsman cannot question this decision.
72. While there is no clear and apparent error in the general choice to use guidance tactiles on Derby Street, the actual implementation of the tactiles is questionable at times. At certain points, the guidance tactiles lead to blister tactiles or other pavements without tactiles, including cobbles and tarmac, under older street designs. This use of the guidance tactiles is inevitable given the transition to older pavement networks, if not ideal. However, on ten separate occasions on Derby Street the guidance tactiles lead directly into the carriageway having previously directed people away from it. And, on a further two occasions the guidance tactiles lead directly into street furniture.
73. The government guidance details that guidance tactiles should be used to guide visually impaired people around obstacles with the intention of preventing potential hazards and danger to people. The implementation of the tactiles on Derby Street on these occasions does not correspond with this intention and instead guides visually impaired people into danger.
74. While this falls short of a formal finding of fault, I recommend the Council reviews these tactiles on Derby Street in consideration of its Public Sector Equality Duty and the potential hazards these tactiles could cause to visually impaired people. The Council should decide during this review whether it will make amendments to the tactiles, or street furniture, and provide an explanation of the outcome of the review to Mr X.
75. Mr X also raised concerns about cars parking over the kerb edge and on the guidance tactiles on Derby Street. The Council is not responsible for the parking of individuals but it should be carrying out relevant parking enforcement if applicable.
76. Derby Street is subject to a No Waiting and No Unloading restriction on the carriageway. The Council operates patrols of Derby Street , through Stoke-on-Trent City Council, to carry out enforcement action on non-compliant parking.
77. The Council is acting in line with its powers to tackle parking on Derby Street. However, parking enforcement is, by its nature, punitive and not preventative. The Council cannot prevent people from parking on the tactiles and can only take action, as it is doing, to attempt to deter future parking contraventions by taking enforcement action.

Consistency of tactiles laid

78. Mr X has provided evidence of an inconsistent application of tactiles across the Council area. This includes roads which have dropped kerbs with and without blister tactiles at separate points.
79. Government guidance stresses the importance of consistency in pavement layouts to help visually impaired people navigate.
80. The Council has accepted there is a lack of consistency on its network and said it plans to commission a project on its carriageway which will include an assessment of the presence of tactile paving at uncontrolled junctions.
81. Given the Council is taking suitable steps to consider the suitability of tactile paving across its network, the Ombudsman could not look to ask it to complete any further works in this respect.

Fencing on Haywood Street

82. Mr X complained that Haywood Street had a fence bordering one side of the road but not the other. This meant that a visually impaired person could cross the road and get trapped on the highway because they would not know about the fence on the other side of the road when they crossed.
83. The Council explained in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses that there are no formal crossing points prompting people to cross the road where the fence exists on the opposite side. The Council also explained that it had installed blister tactiles at a controlled crossing point after the fencing ends. The Council said in the Stage 1 complaint response that this fencing could pose a potential risk to visually impaired people but given the existence of the crossing points it could not justify resources to potentially alter the fencing.
84. Government guidance on the use of tactile paving details that blister surface tactile paving should be used at designated crossing points to act as a guide for visually impaired people to the crossing point itself. The same guidance also advises that kerb edges are used as traditional cues to guide visually impaired people of the existence of a carriageway.
85. Since Haywood street has a dropped kerb and blister tactiles at a controlled pedestrian crossing, the existence of the fence on one side but not the other should not present a hazard to visually impaired people as the correct cues are in place to find a safe crossing point.
86. The Council must act in a proportionate manner when considering the Public Sector Equality Duty and must make efforts to minimise any impact of an issue if it does not have resources to resolve a matter entirely. The Council has considered the potential impact of the fencing on Mr X and other visually impaired people and decided the existence of this fencing does not cause a significant enough issue for visually impaired people to justify the resources to remove the fencing given the existence of the crossing points. The Council has considered its duty and reached a decision it was entitled to make. I cannot find fault with the Council for this.

Back to top

Action

87. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Remind staff about the need to consider the full powers available to it, including deciding to complete repairs itself, when deciding how to ensure utility providers complete highway repairs.
• Provide Mr X with an update about its consideration about whether it should repair the tactiles on the crossing on Ashbourne Road following the next monthly inspection.
88. Within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Review its processes and policies to ensure it is, where possible, encouraging utility companies to install utility covers which allow for complimentary tactile surfaces.
• Review the tactiles on Derby Street in consideration of its Public Sector Equality Duty and the potential hazards these tactiles could cause to visually impaired people. The Council should decide during this review whether it will make amendments to the tactiles, or street furniture, and provide an explanation of the outcome of the review to Mr X.
89. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

90. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman