Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to properly review road safety improvements for his area. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council or that Mr B has been caused injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has not been pro active in reviewing road safety improvements in his area and has relied on outdated information. He believes the increase in traffic requires more traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he provided which included the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B lives on an estate around which new housing developments have been built generating an increase in traffic in the area.
6. While he does not have any problems crossing the main road which runs through his estate, he believes additional traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings should be installed to help the more vulnerable, such as older people.
7. Mr B complained to the Council about its lack of action in reviewing road safety improvements and its failure to take additional preventative measures. The Council responded by explaining preventative measures are targeted to areas with sustained persistency and patterns of road casualties and that in accessing police data on road casualties, his area shows a comparatively good safety record with other locations across the borough with more pressing problems.
8. It explained the factors it takes into account when deciding to take action and that while it did not consider further action was warranted in his area at present, road safety priorities and interventions were regularly reviewed.

Assessment

9. While Mr B may wish for the Council to undertake a traffic survey with his desired outcome being the introduction of further traffic safety measures in his area, it is the Council’s role to prioritise and target its resources and decide when and where such measures are to be introduced. The merits of its decisions are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr B may disagree with them.
10. I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault in the way the Council has dealt with these matters or that M B has been caused injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council or that Mr B has been caused injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman