Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not implementing a lower speed limit on a public road. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council is not implementing a lower speed limit on a road which she feels is dangerous. Mrs X complains that the Council is waiting for an incident to happen before it acts.

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. (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 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and her correspondence with the Council. I also considered Mrs X’s comments on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs X resides part time at a static home site, which sits next to a road with a speed limit of sixty miles an hour.
6. Mrs X complains that the speed limit for this road is too high and has resulted in near misses of accidents with caravans coming out of the static home site and cars travelling on the road.
7. Mrs X also complains that the markings on the road are not always clear enough for drivers to see and be aware that vehicles may be pulling out of the static home site.
8. Mrs X complains that by not lowering the speed limit, the Council is endangering drivers. Mrs X would like for the Council to implement a lower speed limit and make the road markings clearer.
9. Mrs X also complains about how the Council handled her complaint.
10. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council explained it had analysed the accident recording database and had recorded no accidents on the road. It also reviewed the signs and road markings currently in place on the road. The officer evaluated the available information and decided there was not enough evidence to meet the criteria for traffic calming measures. The Council also advised that it must prioritise its resources to areas where there is evidence it would have the most impact.
11. The Council also advised that drivers are responsible for paying attention to road markings on the road, and it cannot be held responsible if drivers are not paying attention to their surroundings.
12. Assessment
13. Mrs X is worried about potential collisions in the future, but the Ombudsman would not normally investigate speculative injustice.
14. It is not for the Ombudsman to question the merits of properly made decisions. We can only look at whether the Council properly considered Mrs X’s concerns and assessed the situation. In this case, the evidence suggests that it did. We cannot therefore question the merits of the decisions themselves.
15. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about complaint handling where he is not investigating the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely I would find evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman