Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed in its statutory duty to assess the nature of his complaint about the speed limits on two roads. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council has failed in its statutory duty to assess the nature of his complaint about the speed limits on two roads. Mr B said he, his family and other residents he knows feel less safe walking down these roads because motorists (not residents) drive carelessly, at high speed and without due care and attention. He said there will be an accident soon if nothing is done.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided and information the Council has published on its website about its highway safety policy. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B told us he asked the Council to review the speed limit on both roads and for further traffic calming measures on one of the roads. He said his local councillor had asked him to canvas residents about speeding and traffic issues. Mr B told us this is the Council’s duty but, unlike the practice of other local councils, it has refused to take such action.
5. There is no duty on councils to act each time a resident raises a road safety concern. According to information it publishes on its website, the Council’s policy is to continually monitor road collision records to identify locations where traffic collisions occur. If there are a large number of collisions or a pattern of similar incidents, the Council will then investigate the location to see if safety improvements can be made. Its priority is to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions by making improvements in the roads where accidents are actually occurring.
6. In its response to Mr B in December 2020 the Council said it had installed a speed visor at the request of the local councillor. It said, since then, in the last three years, there had only been one recorded injury accident at the location. The Council told Mr B this would not be a trigger for further traffic calming measures.
7. When deciding whether to pursue a resident’s concern about the speed limit on a particular road, it was not fault for the Council to refer to recorded injury information first of all before it would take further action. It was for the Council to decide whether its trigger point for the consideration of traffic calming measures had been reached. The road safety concerns Mr B has expressed are a result of the behaviours of motorists. We could not hold the Council responsible for the dangerous behaviour of the motorists who use the roads.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman