Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not follow the correct process when it installed traffic calming measures near their home. They said this caused them and their family stress and inconvenience. There was some fault in the Council’s actions, but it did not lead to an injustice for Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council installed a traffic island and speed table near their home without consulting with them.
2. They said these traffic calming measures created noise, which affected their sleep and stopped them from driving in and out of their property, causing other motorists to verbally abuse them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr and Mrs X’s complaint form and discussed the complaint with Mr X.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided, which included correspondence sent by the Council to Mr and Mrs X.
7. I wrote to Mr and Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal policy

8. Section 90A of the Highways Act 1980 gives a council the power to construct road humps on certain roads.
9. When a council plans to install a road hump, it should consult with:
• the chief officer of police for the area; and
• other persons or bodies which may be required by the Secretary of State.
10. A council should also:
• publish news of the traffic calming measure it intends to install in at least one local newspaper;
• place the traffic calming measures at appropriate points on that highway;
• place a notice of the proposal stating the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump, the address to which objections should be sent and the period within which any objections to the proposal may be sent; and
• erect the notice for no less than 21 days.
11. A council should consider any objections sent to it and may decide to hold a local inquiry.

What happened

12. In 2016, a developer applied to the Council for planning permission to build a housing development. The application included plans for the developer to install traffic calming measures near Mr and Mrs X’s home. Permission was granted in January 2017.
13. The Council installed the traffic calming measures on 19 December 2018. The Council issued a notice both on the prospective site and in the local newspaper on 20 December 2018, making residents aware of the changes. The Council received three responses opposing the measures by the 11 January 2019 deadline. Mr and Mrs X accounted for one of these responses.
14. Mr X raised a complaint with the Council because he was unhappy with the placement of a traffic island outside his property. He said he was unable to properly drive in and out of his home and this had caused friction between him and other motorists, which had escalated to verbal abuse on occasion.
15. Mr X complained again to the Council in January 2019 after noticing a proposal the Council had placed on a lamp post outside his property on 20 December 2018. The proposal outlined plans for a raised speed table to be installed near to Mr X’s home.
16. Mr X was unhappy the Council installed the speed table before the notice period expired on 11 January 2019. He said the table was creating excessive levels of road noise and disrupting his daughter’s sleep.
17. The Council replied on 21 January 2019 at stage 1 of its complaints process and advised it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Council said the Highways Act 1980 gave it the power to install speed humps and other traffic calming measures. The Council confirmed the 21-day notice period during which it collected feedback on the traffic calming measures had passed. The Council said it also held a consultation on the measures in 2016 and was satisfied it had implemented the measures correctly.
18. In response to Mr X’s complaints about the noise and inconvenience caused by the measures, the Council explained that it had raised the table and widened the footway in order to slow down traffic. It had also used materials suggested in the design guidelines for the Department of Transport to limit noise.
19. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 February 2019, saying the Council had failed to consult with him and installed the speed table before the consultation period had expired. Mr X also said the speed table was not effective in reducing speed and caused other motorists to direct anti-social behaviour at him and his family.
20. The Council responded at stage 2 on 3 May 2019, apologising for the delay in responding to the complaint. The Council again did not uphold the complaint and repeated its prior position.
21. Mr X along with his local MP continued to contact the Council about the matter over the following months. The Council explained it could not police the behaviour of other motorists and government guidelines do not consider traffic noise a statutory nuisance.
22. Mr X referred the matter to the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint.
23. In relation to my enquiries the Council said the following: “The Council is responding to wider concerns over traffic levels, congestion and speeds.
    The junction table, together with central islands on approach are intended to provide a gateway feature and slow traffic down on approach… to influence drivers’ speed further, the carriageway at this location is narrowed as far as possible whilst still allowing all manoeuvres to be undertaken… the Council has already extended the dropped kerb in front of [Mr and Mrs X’s address] to accommodate larger vehicles and to improve manoeuvrability to and from the resident’s driveway… the Council has done all it can to limit noise from the new highways arrangements by the use of appropriate materials, deflections and tolerances suggested by the Department for Transport… the Council does not have any statutory powers relating to ‘anti-social’ behaviour of motorists and is therefore unable to take action against individuals that are verbally abusing residents when making manoeuvres on and off driveways.”
24. The Council has also confirmed it has resurfaced the road surrounding the traffic calming measures and undertaken daytime and evening noise surveys to determine whether the measures are creating a statutory nuisance.

My findings

25. The law says councils must carry out a consultation before installing speed bumps. In this case, the Council began the consultation process one day after it installed the speed bumps. This is not in line with the law and it is fault.
26. Mr X objected to the proposal. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence indicates that if the Council had received Mr X’s objections before it installed the traffic calming measures, it would not have done anything differently. Therefore, Mr and Mrs X did not experience a significant injustice.
27. Mr X has advised the new traffic measures have caused him and his family to receive abuse from other motorists. The Council does not have any jurisdiction over the actions and behaviour of other motorists. This is a matter for the police. There was no fault in the Council choosing not to investigate this part of the complaint.
28. The Council has confirmed it has visited the site and conducted several surveys and inspections to check the traffic calming measures have been installed correctly and are not creating a noise nuisance. The Council has responded to
    Mr and Mrs X’s concerns appropriately. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There was fault in the Council’s actions, but it did not lead to a significant injustice for Mr and Mrs X. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman