Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to lower the speed limit on the road where he lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is refusing to lower the speed limit on the road whether he lives from 40mph to 30mph. He says it has not considered the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on speed limits in a village.

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’. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• the information provided by Mr X and the Council including its responses to his complaint.
• Government guidance on setting local speed limits
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision and additional photographs

Back to top

What I found

4. The DfT Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits is guidance for local authorities responsible for setting local speed limits.
5. The guidance says that it is government policy that a 30mph speed limit should be the norm in villages. It goes on to say that for single carriageway rural roads, the traffic authority should consider different issues when deciding the suitable limit on single carriageway rural roads including:
• collision history
• road function
• mix of road users including presence of vulnerable road users
• road geometry, engineering and environment; and
• traffic speed.
6. Section 7 of the circular dealing with rural roads says: “There may be many roads below ‘A’ and ‘B’ classification that serve a mixed through-traffic and access function. Where that traffic function is achieved without a high collision rate, these roads should be judged as through-traffic roads.”
7. It summaries that it is government policy that 30mph is the normal speed through villages. And that sometimes a lower speed may be appropriate. But lower limits should not be considered on roads with a strategic function or where moving traffic is the primary function.

What happened

8. Mr X lives on a ‘B’ road. He wrote to the Council asking it to reduce the speed limit to 30mph.
9. The Council told him it considers the 40mph limit is appropriate and complies with DfT recommendations for A & B roads with main traffic flow function because:
• most of properties on the section of road concerned are sparse and set back from the road
• the road is of a higher quality with some bends, junctions and accesses but the road is primary a through function
• there have been no injury collisions in the last 3 years.

However, it said it will monitor the situation.

10. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says:
• the stretch of road surveyed is not where cars travel fastest
• most of the houses are close to the road and grouped together
• the road services pedestrians such as walkers and residents – not chiefly through traffic
• DfT guidelines for speed limits for villages state that fear of traffic can affect people’s quality of life in villages and it is government policy that a 30mph speed limit should be the norm through villages
• His village fits the DfT criteria for a village
• The fact there has been no personal injuries is irrelevant as his quality of life is affected
• 40mph is not appropriate

Assessment

11. The Ombudsman investigate complaints of injustice caused by fault. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong just because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
12. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s assessment that properties on the road are sparse and set back. And with it’s decision not to reduce the speed limit on his road. But the Council has investigated his concerns. It confirmed it has:
• considered the information he has provided including photographs
• visited the site more than once; and
• collected new speed data

It referenced the relevant Government guidance and explained why reduced speed limits along this stretch of road would be inappropriate. This is in line with national and local policy. Without evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot suggest a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. Subject to any comments Mr X might make, my view is the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council decided not to lower the speed limit on Mr X’s road; and
• it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman