Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has done nothing to alleviate a traffic congestion problem at a road junction. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve more for Mr B by investigating his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council has done nothing to alleviate a traffic congestion problem at a road junction in the area where he lives. Mr B told us he and others continue to experience problems associated with this junction and it is becoming a hazard to road safety.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

5. The road junction is a matter which has been raised regularly at parish council meetings. Mr B told us there remains a problem of cars parked on one of the roads leading to the junction which obstructs the safe passage of cars exiting and entering the junction. Mr B complained the action the Council took to introduce waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) at the junction only has not alleviated the problem. Mr B said the Council has wasted taxpayers’ money by painting lines where no one has ever parked, and which did not address the problem it had been asked to look at.
6. We cannot investigate complaints that a council has wasted taxpayers’ money. That is because this affects most people in a council’s area. We cannot investigate complaints which affect all or most people in a council’s area.
7. When the Council replied to Mr B’s complaint it said parked cars have a traffic calming effect in that they reduce vehicle speeds and it is likely residents who park on the road currently would object to any proposals to introduce waiting restrictions further along the road. The Council said there was no recorded collision history in the area in the previous three years. It said the engineer who dealt with the original request from residents had left the authority. The Council said residents had complained about dangerous parking at the junction only. It told Mr B it had received no objections or comments during the Traffic Regulation Order consultation process or other subsequent complaints.
8. With its complaint response, the Council sent Mr B a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order and the Statement of Reasons for it. Mr B then told the Council the wrong street was given on the Statement of Reasons and there was inaccurate information in it. Mr B said this may be the reason why people did not respond to the Council’s proposal.
9.  In its reply to Mr B the Council said the plan it displayed near the junction was correct as was the Traffic Regulation Order. It said the engineer did not make notes of the site visit. That is because the assessment is not based on observation alone but relies predominantly on information from residents of the area. The Council said the residents know the extent of the issues throughout the day far better than its officers can gauge from a 15-minute visit to the area at any one point in time.   
10. Given the lapse of time and the lack of notes of the engineer’s visit, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to say exactly what was discussed at that time. There is no indication in the records of parish council meetings that parish councillors and local residents were unhappy at first with the Council’s proposals. It was for the Council’s officers to use their professional judgement when deciding how best to address the concerns of the residents who originally asked for waiting restrictions.
11. Mr B wants the Council to extend the length of the double yellow lines to increase safety at the junction. But the parish council has recently agreed to write to the Council to ask if the double yellow lines can be extended. We would expect the Council to consider this request. It is unlikely that we would achieve more for Mr B by investigating his complaint. We have no powers to order the Council to introduce the change Mr B wants. Also, Mr B has not suffered significant injustice over and above other residents who use the road junction to justify the Ombudsman investigating his complaint at the current time.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve more for Mr B by investigating his complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman