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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed bollards on the highway verge, near the entrance to his driveway.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint.
3. Mr X said the bollards restrict access to his property and caused damage to his vehicle.

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 bollards close to his driveway. Mr X said they caused difficulties for him when entering and exiting his property.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council visited his property twice and said the bollards had been correctly placed at a suitable distance from his driveway. It also said it had placed bollards around the area, to prevent safety hazards caused by vehicles driving along grass verges.
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. 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.
12. In this case, the Council acted within its powers to place the bollards along the highway verge. We would be unlikely to find fault with its decision making.
13. The Council also carried out site visits to review the placement of the bollards, after Mr X raised concerns about them. This action is appropriate.
14. In any case, Mr X’s desired outcome is for the Council to remove the bollards. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council to remove the bollards and therefore we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.
15. Finally, as we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

16. 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