Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about heavy goods vehicles using Mrs X’s road. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, installing more signs would not necessarily stop the HGVs using that road, and enforcement is not the Council’s role.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) using her road. She says these cause her house to vibrate, which is distressing.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s home is on a road within a zone where heavy goods vehicles are not allowed. Mrs X says HGVs nevertheless frequently use her road as a short-cut. Mrs X says this causes her house and neighbouring houses to vibrate, which is distressing. Mrs X did not suggest to us that the HGVs were causing damage to her property. In any event, it would be more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider any allegation of liability for damage.
6. Mrs X wants the Council to install signs on her road explaining the restriction. The Council says it can only lawfully install signs at the zone’s entrances and exits, not elsewhere. Mrs X points out one road near hers has such signs.
7. There is no legal provision for ‘repeater’ signs and no obligation on the Council to provide them. Therefore we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council not installing them. In that context, the apparent existence of such signs elsewhere is not directly relevant.
8. Also, any HGVs driving on Mrs X’s road will already have passed restriction signs at the entrances to the controlled zone. In that case the drivers, not the Council, are at fault for not obeying such signs. Therefore we cannot presume the Council placing additional signs would necessarily prevent HGVs entering Mrs X’s road.
9. The Council does not believe there are good grounds to change speed bumps in her road. It says there is no evidence the HGVs cause damage by using them. I do not see grounds to fault the Council here. Nor would any action about the speed bumps resolve the underlying problem of HGVs using the road.
10. Mrs X asks what the Council will do about HGVs breaking the law by using her road. Enforcement is for the police, not the Council. Mrs X says the police just suggested she ask the Council for additional signs. She states she cannot tell the police how to use their resources. However, that does not make the Council at fault for not doing more.
11. Mrs X also complains the Council ignored her complaint for several weeks until she contacted a councillor. The Council apologised and raised the matter with staff. 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. We would also be unlikely to recommend more than the Council has already done on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because: there is insufficient evidence of fault; installing more signs will not necessarily stop the HGVs using Mrs X’s road and enforcement of breaches is for the police, not the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman