Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over a speed hump which he says could damage his car’s suspension because it is badly made. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X. If he suffers any damage to his car he could make a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance and to the small claims court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council refusing to accept that a speed hump near his home is incorrectly shaped. He says the bump causes his car’s suspension to bottom out and that this could lead to damage over time. He wants the Council to modify the joint where the hump meets the road surface.

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.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council after his car was subjected to heavy jolting on a speed hump near his home. He says this is just one of the humps which appears to have been built with a defect in its joint with the highway surface. The Council inspected the feature and told him that it complies with the regulations as it is well within the 100mm limit required by the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999.
6. Mr X says that it is not the height of the hump but its construction and alignment which is causing the problem with his small car. He says that the joint with the road surface may be too high and the angle of the hump too severe. The Regulations require that the vertical upstand should be no higher than 6mm.
7. There is currently insufficient evidence of injustice to Mr X to warrant an investigation. There is no damage to his car at present and all speed humps can cause jolting to car occupants. He could measure the height of the joint and if it exceeds the regulation limit inform the Council that he could have a potential claim for any damage to his vehicle. The Ombudsman cannot investigate claims for damage to property or personal injury because these are legal torts which can only be determined by insurers or the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X. If he suffers any damage to his car he could make a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance and to the small claims court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman