Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s placement of a bollard on the highway verge. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and in any case, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed a bollard on the highway verge near the entrance to his driveway. Mr X said the Council acted unfairly because it has not installed them elsewhere.
2. Mr X said the bollard restricts access to his property and caused damage to his vehicle.
3. Mr X wants the Council to remove the bollard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained the Council placed a bollard close to his driveway.
9. The Council said it placed the bollard because of damage to the grass verge. Mr X said the Council did not provide any evidence to support the claim of damage to the grass verge, warranting it placing the bollard.
10. Councils as highway authorities have powers under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 to place infrastructure such as signs, bollards, trees and lampposts in the highway, footway or verge without the requirement for consultation, planning approval or notification.
11. 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.
12. Mr X said the Council acted unfairly because there are damaged grass verges elsewhere, yet the Council had not installed bollards or taken other action. In its complaint response, the Council said its enforcement team would consider these areas.
13. 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.
14. In this case, the Council acted within its powers to place the bollard on the highway verge and therefore we would be unlikely to find fault with its decision making.
15. The Council also said it would consider other areas with damaged verges, which Mr X reported. This appears to be appropriate.
16. In any case, Mr X’s desired outcome is for the Council to remove the bollard. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council to remove the bollard and therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman