Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about alterations to an access road. This is because it is not likely we can achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council’s alterations to an access road will put lives at risk.

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, 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)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and his comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us the Council altered an access road he uses to a single lane. He says if drivers turn onto this access road, in some circumstances they may need to reverse out onto a busy road. He says this is an extremely dangerous procedure that puts lives at risk. Mr B told us he has not yet had to reverse onto the busy road but this is likely to happen at some point.
6. Mr B wants the Council to reinstate the turning circle it had removed.
7. The Council has considered Mr B’s complaint. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said, when it constructs new accesses or dropped kerbs, it does not require a vehicle turnaround facility unless the exit is onto a high-speed road (that is where the speed limit is 50mph or more). It said the exit from the access in this case is onto a road where the speed limit is 30mph. The Council’s view is it is for drivers to take appropriate care when using the roads and to adjust their driving to take account of the conditions of the road.
8. A complaint to us is not the same as an appeal against a council decision. It is not our role to judge whether the changes the Council has made have led to a serious safety risk. The Ombudsman has no powers to substitute his own judgement on highway issues for that of a council’s highways officers. We look at the Council’s decision-making process. The Council has confirmed to Mr B that a highways officer had concerns about the lack of room for vehicles to turn around once the new measures were in place. But these were discussed at the scoping of the work stage. While Mr B disagrees with the removal of the turning area, the Council considered what he said but made the point the alterations were in line with its normal practice. In those circumstances it is not likely we can achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is not likely we can achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman