Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a highway bollard on the corner of his property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor injustice directly stemming from its actions or inactions, to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a property on the corner of two narrow roads used by some vehicles in a conservation area. He complains the Council has:
1. refused to install a bollard on the corner;
2. refused to act outside of its policy on installing highway bollards;
3. installed bollards to protect properties in other parts of the conservation area;
4. failed to take into account his human rights.
2. Mr X says he has anxiety about vehicles going past his home, hitting and scraping it, which impacts his and his family’s health and wellbeing. He says the cost of fixing damage to the house on many occasions is a financial strain and burden. Mr X wants the Council to install the bollard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s request for a bollard, the Council sent a highways engineering officer to assess the site. The officer determined that the location was unsuitable for the bollard. Officers gathered relevant information about the location by visiting. They then considered the matter against the Council’s locally adopted policies, national government guidance and legislation.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees. We note Mr X also considers the Council should exercise discretion to set aside its policy to allow it to fit the bollard. But the Council’s assessment indicates the bollard would not only go against its own policy, but also national government guidelines and law, which it has no discretionary powers to disregard.
9. Mr X complains the Council has previously installed bollards on similar corners in his area. The Council has explained that bollards may have been put in when policy, national guidance and laws were different. Officers consider they must make decisions based on the current legislation and guidelines. It was not fault for the Council to take that approach.
10. Even if there had been fault by the Council here, we would not investigate. Mr X’s claimed injustice is worry about further vehicles hitting his house and the costs and inconveniences of previous incidents. Mr X bought his home in the last few years. The circumstances of the property, its location and the vehicle use allowed in adjacent streets, were in place and would have been apparent at the time of his purchase. It was primarily Mr X’s choice to buy the property which made the matters he now considers injustices into his concerns. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X and his family by the Council’s involvement here to justify us investigating.
11. We note Mr X believes the Council has not taken proper account of his and his family’s human rights when deciding not to fit the bollard. He refers to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). Our remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a council has breached the 1998 Act. This can only be done by the courts. We may only decide whether a council has had due regard to someone’s human rights issues when dealing with their complaint. The complaint reply on file from the Council does not specifically refer to human rights. However, Mr X links his human rights claim to the injustices of disruption and damage caused by vehicles hitting or scraping his property. This was information the Council considered when responding to his complaint and deciding not to step outside local policy, national guidelines and legislation to do the work Mr X wants. The Council therefore had due regard to the issues Mr X raised in relation to his human rights and there is insufficient evidence of fault on this issue to warrant an investigation. If Mr X wants a definitive decision on whether the Council breached the 1998 Act, he would need to put his case before a court.
12. We understand the outcome Mr X wants is for the Council to install the bollard. But we cannot order councils to do particular highway works. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice stemming from the Council’s actions or inactions to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman