Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s installation of a pedestrian crossing. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s installation of a pedestrian crossing near his home. He says the drawings provided for residents did not show the extent of changes to the grass verge or the location of flashing beacons close to his home. As a result, he says the plants which residents had placed in the verge were destroyed when it was re-designed and the beacons interrupt the view form his home and cause light pollution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council installed a pedestrian crossing outside his home following poor public consultation. He says the drawings which the council had provided did not accurately represent where the flashing beacon would be installed and that insufficient notice meant that plants which residents had placed in the highway verge could not be removed before the verge was reconfigured. He also says the beacon is nearer his home than on drawings of the proposals.
6. The Council accepted that the drawings available to the public were subject to amendments and this could have been made clearer. However, the crossing complies with the regulations which determine the layout of crossings. The Council is the highway authority and it determines where infrastructure should be placed.
7. The planting carried out by residents in the highway verge was on land under the control of the highway authority. It had no duty to advise residents of the impact of the work because only the highway authority can place articles on highway land unless it gives permission or a licence to another party. The only requirement was to notify residents of any parking or road closure matters which might affect them during the works.
8. Since Mr X complained about the flashing beacon the Council has installed shielding around it to mitigate any disturbance it may cause.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. In this case there is insufficient significant injustice caused by the installation of the crossing.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s installation of a pedestrian crossing. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman