Summary: Ms D complained about the Council’s decision to place a zebra crossing in front of her house without consulting her. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained about the Council’s decision to place a zebra crossing in front of her house without consulting her. She says the Council has not provided her with evidence of when site notices were displayed, and it has avoided providing her with information to justify the zebra crossing. She adds the Council placed an advert in a free newspaper which is not delivered on her road.
2. Ms D says she struggles to safely exit her drive without causing a hazard. She is concerned about a lack of privacy because of cars stropping outside her house. She also says the matter has caused her stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Ms D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
7. Ms D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

8. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out the consultation required by a council before it can install a pedestrian crossing. The Act says that before establishing, altering, or removing a crossing a council:

1. shall consult the chief officer of police about their proposal to do so; and
2. shall give public notice of that proposal.

9. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is a legal document, which allows the highway authority to regulate the speed, movement, and parking of vehicles.
10. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the procedure for councils to follow when creating a Traffic Regulation Order. Councils must publish at least one notice of the proposal in a local newspaper and within the London Gazette. Councils must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people affected, but this is not a requirement.

What happened

11. The Council held a public consultation in early 2018 for improvements to the cycle route near to where Ms D lives. In response to this consultation, some residents and local groups raised concerns about fast moving traffic on the road where Ms D lives. They asked for the Council to install a zebra crossing.
12. The Council delivered leaflets in Ms D’s area in November 2018. It said it had noted the requests from local groups and residents for a zebra crossing on Ms D’s road to improve access to local schools and the train station. It said it was proposing to install a zebra crossing and asked for comments on the proposals.
13. The Council put up a site notice on Ms D’s road in October 2019. It said it was proposing to install a zebra crossing outside Ms D’s house and it asked for comments within 21 days. It also placed an advert in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette.
14. Ms D emailed the Council in August 2020 after the works started. She said she had not received any notice of the works and she had not been given an opportunity to raise objections. She also asked the Council to evidence why a zebra crossing was necessary.
15. The Council issued its response to Ms D’s complaint. It said:

• It approved the zebra crossing after consultation with residents and other local groups.
• The need for a zebra crossing was suggested in submissions received from residents on her road who were concerned about speeding, parking, and the safety of pedestrians.
• It formally advertised the scheme in accordance with procedures set out in national guidance.
• It was necessary to install the zebra crossing outside her house as that is where most pedestrians and cyclists would need to cross the road.
• It would arrange shielding for the flashing beacons. It also said it would adjust the length of the zig zag markings on the exit from the zebra crossing to help make parking more available for her visitors.

16. Ms D emailed the complaints manager at the Council. She said she had yet to receive a satisfactory response to her concerns and she had not received supporting evidence to justify why it was necessary to install the zebra crossing.
17. The Council responded to Ms D’s complaint in September 2020. It reiterated its previous response. It also provided her with information on the public consultation.
18. Ms D remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. A TRO is not required for a zebra crossing. However, as there were other restrictions that were part of the same scheme that did need a TRO, the Council publicised all the proposals in the same way and followed the requirements under the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It publicised an advert in a local newspaper, the London Gazette and put up a site notice near Ms D’s house. There is no requirement for the Council to consult with Ms D directly.
20. Ms D says the Council placed an advert in a free newspaper which is not delivered on her road. However, traditionally newspapers were not delivered to individual houses. The Council complied with the 1996 regulations by placing an advert in a local newspaper which is available for collection in Ms D’s area. There is no evidence of fault.
21. Ms D says the Council has not provided evidence it displayed a site notice. Although the Council has not provided photographic evidence, it provided Ms D with an email of the site notice. It has also provided me with an internal email between its officers in September 2019 attaching a copy of the site notice due to be displayed in October 2019. I therefore find it more likely that not that the Council did put up the site notice.
22. Finally, Ms D says the Council has avoided providing her with information to justify the zebra crossing. When the Council responded to Ms D’s complaint, it provided her with information on why it was necessary to install the zebra crossing. It also referred her to the results of the public consultation.
23. I appreciate Ms D disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman can only question a decision or process if it was carried out with fault. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision in this case and so I am satisfied it acted properly.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman