Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to retain traffic calming measures on the road into the housing estate on which he lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because events from 2017 fall outside our jurisdiction and an investigation of more recent events would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed to follow the Traffic Calming Regulations in 2017 when it carried out resurfacing works to the road into his housing estate and reinstalled speed bumps.

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 investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Prior to the road into Mr B’s housing estate being adopted by the Council, the developers installed speed bumps.
6. In 2017 the Council resurfaced the road. In carrying out this work it removed and then reinstated the speed bumps.
7. In 2019 Mr B and other signatories petitioned the Council for the removal of the speed bumps. At the meeting considering the petition, the Council decided to follow the officer report recommendation for the retention of the bumps.
8. Mr B complained to the Council that it had failed to properly follow the Traffic Calming Regulations when it reinstated the bumps in 2017 because it did not consult properly, and it did not consider other traffic calming measures.
9. The Council responded by stating these requirements apply to new and not reinstated traffic calming schemes and that the work done in 2017 was a like for like replacement with the features that were reinstated still complying with the regulations. It has confirmed it will not be making any changes to the traffic calming measures at the location in question. Mr B disputes the Council’s interpretation of the regulations on this point.

Assessment

10. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr B’s complaint about what took place in 2017 and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate these earlier events now.
11. With regard to the Council’s recent consideration of matters, prompted by the petition received from residents, it has decided to retain the existing measures and has no plans to change what is in place. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly Mr B may disagree with it. I have seen no evidence that there was fault in the way it came to this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because events from 2017 fall outside our jurisdiction and an investigation of more recent events would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman