Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install speed cushions in the road outside the complainant’s home. The complainant was aware of the proposed location of the speed cushions and objected. Therefore, the error in Public Notice has not caused him a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to consult residents before installing speed humps on the road outside his home. He says it failed to present all the necessary details to the Committee and made a traffic order citing the incorrect location, which is potentially unlawful.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s report to the Traffic Management Meeting says it received reports of excessive speeding from residents and the Police. It installed speed monitoring equipment near Mr X’s home which showed 36% of drivers on the road where Mr X lives were exceeding 35 miles per hour.
7. The report also notes that four incidents were reported to the Police between 2016 and 2018, although none of these were related to speed.
8. The Council report says it consulted all statutory consultees including the Police and all emergency services. It delivered a copy of the Public Notice to Mr X and other residents close to the proposed site for speed cushions. It also displayed a copy of the Notice close to the site and informed the local councillor.
9. Mr X confirms he received a copy of the Notice and sent his objections. The report includes details of the representations received, including Mr X’s objections.
10. The report also refers to an error in the Notice which refers to two sets of speed cushions. It confirms the proposal was for only one set of speed cushions.
11. The Council considered the report including Mr X’s objections. It decided to go ahead with the scheme as it considered it would reduce speeding.
12. Mr X and others responded to the Council’s proposals so I cannot agree with his claim that the Council failed to consult residents.
13. He also says the Council used the wrong road name for the site of the speed cushions. However, the map included with the Council’s report is clear. The Council also confirmed there would only be one set of speed cushions, not two as stated in the original Notice. As Mr X was aware of the proposed location, I do not consider he suffered a significant personal injustice because of the error in the report.
14. The speed cushions have been installed according to the Council’s powers under section 90 A to E of the Highways Act 1980. A traffic regulation order has not been issued therefore I cannot agree with his claim that the Order is potentially unlawful.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I do not consider that any error in the Public Notice caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. And I do not agree the Council failed to consult residents or that the Order is potentially unlawful.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman