Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s placing a wooden bollard on the highway verge. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council placing a wooden post in the grass verge near the entrance to his driveway. He says it is a potential hazard and may damage his car when he is manoeuvring in and out of his access. He wants the Council to remove the post.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has placed a wooden post in the verge near his driveway access to the road. He believes it is a hazard and he was not consulted or notified by the Council. He complained to the Council and it told him that the post was located to prevent erosion of the grass verge by vehicles along with other posts in the area.
6. Councils as highway authorities have powers under the provisions of the highways Act 1980 to place infrastructure such as signs, bollards, trees and lamp posts in the highway, footway or verge without the requirement for consultation, planning approval or notification. Mr X has a vehicle crossing which includes a licence to cross the highway footway and verge but he has no permission to interfere with any other part of the highway, including the grass verge.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. In this case the highway authority was within its powers to place the bollard in the verge for highway purposes and Mr X would be liable for any damage which he may cause if he was involved in a collision with it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s placing a wooden bollard on the highway verge. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman