Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in replacing a speed limit sign. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council delayed replacing a damaged speed limit repeater sign on a road near his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council also provided background information.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told the Council in early 2019 that a speed limit repeater sign was missing. The Council at first said it could not give priority to the work but replaced the sign in May 2019.
6. Mr B complained to us before the Council replaced the sign. In his complaint he said the issue had not affected him personally. The outcome he sought was for the Council to replace the sign.

Back to top

Final decision

7. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find that fault by the Council has caused Mr B injustice that warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman