Summary: Miss X complained about safety issues following the Council’s introduction of a new cycleway scheme in her town. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Miss X which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complained about the new cycleway scheme which the Council has introduced which gives pedestrian and cycle traffic priority across road junctions by continuing the pavement across them. She says this is dangerous as motorists will not understand the priority and the raised edge of the footway is a hazard to cyclists. She also complained about other aspects of the layout.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Miss X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X says the new highway scheme which the Council has introduced in her town places cyclists and pedestrians at risk because it has extended the footway across side road junctions. She says users will be unaware that they are crossing a road and this will put them in danger. She also says a bevelled strip separating cycle and pedestrian traffic is a hazard to cyclists and would prefer a pedestrian crossing with lights to the existing traffic island.
6. The Council responded to her complaint and told her that the scheme is based on successful similar schemes in Europe and other parts of the country. If there are improvements required which are highlighted by use it will consider them. The scheme was devised by experienced highway engineers and reviewed by independent safety auditors.
7. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision or action is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it, but rather must consider whether the council has acted reasonably in accordance with the law, its own policies and generally accepted standards of local administration.
8. In this case it is clear that Miss X disagrees with the Council’s highway scheme but there is no evidence of any administrative fault in the process. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers to decide what traffic management schemes should be introduced in its area.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman