Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to put in place successful traffic management measures to prevent traffic speeding through his village. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s failure to resolve problems with traffic exceeding the speed limit in his village over the past decade. He says the Council has undertaken traffic surveys over the past 14 years but any measures it has taken have not resolved the problem. He wants the Council to consider having an average speed camera system installed.

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
• 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.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says traffic has been breaking the speed limit in his and the adjoining village for a number of years. He and other residents are concerned about the danger from traffic and have been asking the Council to take action in the form of cameras and other speed measures.
6. The Council has carried out some improvements in the area in the past in response to concerns, including vehicle activated speed signs and road features. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to consider matters which took place more than 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to our attention.
7. In August the Council produced a report after multi-agency consideration of the problem. It used information from radar speed monitoring consultants who carried out surveys of the site to obtain data on vehicle speeds. The report considered options and said it would introduce some traffic calming in the coming years, starting with the removal of the centreline in the village. It said this should be possible within the current financial year with further improvements subject to parish council clarification from April 2021.
8. The Council considered that cameras were not an option due to suitability and maintenance costs. The suggestion of local funding for installation was not entirely dismissed but the practicality issue remains. Mr X remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council’s investigations and considers it to be a waste of public money and time.
9. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body and question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. 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.
10. In this case there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman