Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to install speed cameras on the road where the complainant lives. This is because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says the Council told him it would not install speed cameras on the road where he lives. He says he was told this is because there have been no accidents causing serious injury or death at the site. He says after further correspondence it told him there was no funding for speed cameras.
2. Mr B is concerned there will be a serious accident outside his front door. And, because of the rural location, he says he and his neighbours would have to give first aid and deal with people involved in an accident.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr B which includes the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have also considered the guidance published by the Department for Transport on locating and running speed cameras.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council is the highways authority for the road where Mr B lives. Mr B complains the Council have refused his request to introduce speed cameras. He says a recent traffic survey revealed traffic travelling at excessive speeds.
6. The Council says excessive speed is a moving traffic offence and is therefore a police matter.
7. It also confirms that any site considered for speed cameras must follow the guidance in the Transport for Greater Manchester Safety Camera handbook.
8. This handbook states a condition for installing cameras at a site is the requirement there must have been accidents causing deaths or serious injury at the site. Fortunately, there have been not such events on the stretch of road Mr B is concerned about. Therefore, the site does not qualify for speed cameras.
9. Mr B raised the matter again with the Council. It advised that financial constraints mean that when money is spent on installing cameras at a non-fatal or serious injury site, there is less money available for safety measures at known accident sites.

Assessment

10. I do not intend to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install speed cameras on his road. It is evident the Council has considered his concerns and explained to him why it will not agree to his request.
11. The requirement for locating cameras at known serious accident sites is in line with the guidance published by the Government. I understand Mr B disagrees with this view, but this is a matter for the Council to decide. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how it has done so. In the absence of any fault, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because from the information I have seen, there is no fault in the way the Council decided not to install speed cameras close to Mr B’s home.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman