Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s installation of a zebra crossing near a property he purchased. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council blocked vehicle access to his driveway by installing a zebra crossing in front of it. He said the Council failed to include his property in a statutory consultation about the crossing. He said that he now has no vehicle access to his driveway which is an inconvenience and caused him financial loss. He would like the Council to relocate the zebra crossing to reinstate his driveway access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s complaint response.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In summer 2022, the Council installed a zebra crossing outside a property which Mr X purchased later that year.
5. Mr X contacted the Council in November 2022 and asked it to move the zebra crossing. In its complaint response, the Council said it had told Mr X that it would not move the zebra crossing due to the cost being too expensive and it would not spend that amount of money for the benefit of one resident.
6. Mr X complained the Council did not carry out a proper consultation before it installed the zebra crossing. In its complaint response, the Council stated in January 2022 it sent resident consultation letters to the affected properties, placed a notice in the local newspaper and put notices on lampposts on the street. It confirmed that no objection to the crossing was raised by the previous owners of the property.
7. The Council confirmed the property Mr X purchased did not have a dropped kerb to allow vehicle access to a driveway. Therefore, the installation of the zebra crossing did not restrict any existing legal vehicular access to his property.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s installation of the crossing did not block access to Mr X’s property. The Council confirmed that Mr X’s property did not have authorised vehicle access to the highway. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council reviewed the consultation process and explained why it would not move the crossing. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council installed the crossing, or responded to Mr X’s complaints, to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman