Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to complete roadworks and remove temporary traffic signals on a bridge in his area. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about traffic lights on a railway bridge which he says have been there for 19 months. He says the lights cause delays on a major road in the county and that it is an inconvenience and gives a poor image of the county. He wants the work to be completed and the lights removed.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council about traffic lights which have been on a railway bridge over an A-Road for the past 19 months. He says there is no sign of work by the Council’s highway contractors and that the lights are an inconvenience to road users.
5. The Council responded to his comments and says that the bridge was damaged by a vehicle strike and the lights are to manage traffic use over the damaged structure. The contractor has been negotiating with Network Rail about closing the railway in order for the work to be carried out safely, but this has been further delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic since March 2020.
6. The Council says the work towards obtaining a works contract is progressing, but it is dependent on the agreement of the rail operator. The lights will remain in place until the works can be arranged to be undertaken.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by fault in the Council’s administrative process or by service failure. 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.
8. In this case the temporary signals are in place to protect the public from a damaged structure and works can only be completed with the permission of a third party. This is not evidence of fault by the Council which must consider safety matters as paramount. The Council says the work will be completed by December 2020 and the signals removed shortly afterwards. Whilst the signals may cause some delays to traffic, I do not consider there is sufficient personal injustice to Mr X to warrant further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman