Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take action to reduce the level of traffic passing his home and about the way it handled his complaint about this matter. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to cut off his road to traffic, which is being used as a cut through by many vehicles, or to take other measures to control traffic on the road. As a result, his property is being damaged and his health is suffering. He also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter.

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 reviewed the information provided by Mr X. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives on a minor country lane which over the years has seen an increase in the amount of traffic on it.
6. Mr X complained to the Council that the volume of traffic is negatively affecting his health and weakening the structure of his building. He asked the Council to close the lane to traffic to stop it being used as a cut through to more major roads.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint by explaining that the road in question forms part of the highway network which a variety of traffic can and will use and that it has no plans at present to introduce measures beyond those already introduced there. It confirmed it would not consider closing the road to through traffic and that it had no evidence to support Mr X’s claim that it was unsafe for pedestrians or cyclists.

Assessment

8. The Ombudsman cannot review the merits of decisions properly taken by local authorities even though the complainant may strongly disagree with them. The Council has explained to Mr X that it receives many requests for it to take action but that it must prioritise the funding it receives to deal with locations with the greatest proven needs. It considered Mr X’s request but made clear it will not be closing the road or taking any further measures to those already taken. While this is disappointing for Mr X, it is not evidence of fault by the Council.
9. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s delay in handling his complaint and that it is unclear who is responding to his contact. The Council apologised for failing to respond to him within its published guidelines but this matter is not one the Ombudsman will pursue in isolation as there is insufficient fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman