Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road signs in the Council’s areas. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and Mr Y has not suffered a significant personal injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council:
• Put up signs in the area which are unlawful;
• Gave false information about costs for signage and failed to acknowledge safety concerns as part of its complaint response; and
• Failed to follow its complaints procedure.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the information Mr Y had provided. Mr Y 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

5. Mr Y complained about a series of green signs in the Council’s area in March 2021. The Council had put up the signs in 2020. Mr Y said the signs were confusing to elderly drivers, including his mother, and did not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). He asked the Council for the costs of each sign.
6. The Council replied in April 2021. It said it could not give an exact cost for each sign because the signs had been part of a larger purchase for projects across the Council’s area.
7. The Council then gave a second, final response about two weeks later. Having made further enquiries, it was now able to give a cost of each sign individually. It said the trial had not raised any safety concerns and the signs were informative, rather than regulatory in nature. It said this meant the signs did not need to comply with the TSRGD. Mr Y then approached the Ombudsman in May 2021.

Analysis

8. The Council has explained the signs Mr Y has complained about are for information purposes as part of a trial scheme and as such are not subject to the TSRGD requirements. As the Council did not intend the signs to add restrictions to the street, it is unlikely we would find fault for them not meeting the needs of TSRGD.
9. The first complaint response said the Council could not give an individual price per sign and explained the reasons why. The second complaint response could provide this information after a more senior member of staff was able to make further enquiries, to answer Mr Y’s query. The Council’s response on each occasion was reasoned and explained. Mr Y may have preferred the Council to answer his question in the first response. However, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s approach or responses.
10. Also, the Council’s second complaint response did acknowledge that Mr Y had raised safety concerns, although more generally and without the specific example of Mr Y’s mother. It said it did not have safety concerns over the signs following its own monitoring. This was in direct response to Mr Y’s comment that the signs were confusing and caused a danger. As the Council has considered this view and given its response, it is unlikely we would find fault for it not acknowledging Mr Y’s concerns specifically. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Further, Mr Y has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of his complaint. His complaint correspondence refers to potential confusion for the elderly or disabled road users, where he has given an example of his elderly mother who has struggled with the signs. As he has not been directly caused a serious injustice, we will not investigate this complaint.
12. Mr Y has also complained the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Thus, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely, we would find fault and Mr Y has not suffered a significant personal injustice which would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman