Summary: The Council was not at fault for its response to Mr B’s complaint about signs on the road leading to his property. It considered the issues he raised, installed new signs, and explained why it would not take further action. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot question its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says the road going past his property was blocked by a landslide several years ago, and it remains impassable to vehicles. He complains that the Council has failed to ensure that its road signs properly advise road users about the blockage. He says this leads to drivers (including of larger vehicles, such as coaches) accidentally driving down the road, before having to turn around outside his house, even though there is no room to do so.
2. Mr B says he wants new signs installing which alert drivers to the blockage, and which advise them to drive around it. He says he also wants new signs which make clear that different parts of the village he lives in are on different sides of the blockage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 considered information from Mr B and the Council. I wrote to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B and a small number of his neighbours live on the west side of the road blockage. The rest (and vast majority) of the village they live in is on the east side.
7. Up-to-date satellite navigation programs and online maps say the blocked part of the road is not in use. Navigation from one side of the blockage to the other is via a 15-minute circuit, rather than through the blockage.
8. However, the same programs, when navigating to Mr B’s postcode, send users to the wrong side of the blockage.
9. At the time Mr B complained, the signs on the road to the west of his property directed drivers away from the blocked road. There was also a ‘no through road’ sign on the road, although Mr B complained that it was obscured by a hedge.
10. In response to Mr B’s complaint, in April 2019, the Council said it would install two more signs to the west of his property. One, in a nearby village, would say there was no vehicle access to Mr B’s village. The other, closer to his property, would say the road is not a through road.
11. The Council acknowledged the difficulty Mr B experienced as a result of sharing a postcode with properties on the east side of the blockage. However, it said it could not resolve this with directional signs.
12. The Council installed the two new signs on the road west of Mr B’s property.
13. Mr B says he wants the Council’s directional signs to make clear that different parts of the village he lives in are on different sides of the blockage.

My findings

14. I cannot tell a council how to respond to a request to change road signs. However, I can look at whether it has properly considered the request and justified any action taken (or any refusal to take action). If it has, then I cannot question its decision.
15. At the time of Mr B’s complaint, the directional signs to the west of his property already directed drivers away from the blocked road, and there was also a ‘no through road’ sign.
16. In response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council considered the information he provided and decided the circumstances justified two more signs to make the blockage clearer. It then installed the signs.
17. Photographic evidence clearly shows that the signs on the road to the west of Mr B’s property say the road ahead is blocked. Although Mr B says one of those signs is covered by a hedge, I am satisfied that there are enough signs to provide the correct information to drivers.
18. Drivers are responsible for their own journeys. If they do not see (or ignore) the road signs, and do not make use of online maps or satellite navigation programs which tell them the road is blocked, then this is not the Council’s responsibility.
19. I acknowledge that Mr B must experience some issues with his postcode, which he shares with properties on the other side of the blocked road. Online maps say the postcode is on the other side. I do not doubt that this causes problems for deliveries and visitors (who have to take a 15-minute round trip to get from one side of the blockage to the other).
20. However, I must consider the degree to which this is the Council’s fault. It cannot control the map data provided by third parties, and I do not agree that Mr B’s suggestion – which is for a separate sign to the properties on the west side of the blockage, including his own, describing them as the ‘west’ of the village he lives in – is reasonable, given that this would not actually tell drivers the correct way to get to the western part of the village, the bulk of which is on the other side of the blocked road.
21. The Council considered Mr B’s request but decided it could not remedy his postcode issue with directional signs. I am satisfied that it has considered the matter and has explained why it will not take further action, so I cannot question its decision.
22. As a result, I have not found fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council was not at fault for its response to Mr B’s complaint about signs on the road leading to his property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman