London Borough of Haringey (21 006 392)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 01 Sep 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the installation of a speed cushion which the complainant says causes noise and vibration. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X has complained the Council installed a speed cushion at a zebra crossing outside his property. He says this has not helped slow down traffic but is instead causing noise and vibration when vehicles travel over it.
- Mr X feels his privacy and comfort have been ruined by the speed cushion. He wants it removed and the road levelled off.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
- Mr X now had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered his comments carefully before reaching my final decision.
My assessment
- Mr X says vehicles passing over a speed cushion outside his home cause noise and vibration which ruin his privacy and enjoyment. The Council had installed the speed cushion as a safety measure at the zebra crossing.
- Mr X complained to the Council which investigated his concerns and engaged in extensive communication with him.
- The Council reviewed the layout of the highway outside Mr X’s home. It explained the speed cushion was necessary to slow down traffic approaching a major nearby junction and to increase the safety of people using the zebra crossing.
- The Council accepted the profile of the speed cushion could be improved and took quick remedial action. It also installed road signs warning motorists to reduce their speed on the approach to the zebra crossing.
- The Council had a site meeting with Mr X who did not agree speeds were being reduced by the signs or speed cushion. The Council then undertook average speed surveys which showed vehicles were travelling at an appropriate speed.
- The Council says the measures adopted are achieving the desired outcome and it will not remove the speed cushion. However, it is willing to keep the situation under review subject to any further evidence Mr X produces to support his position.
Final decision
- My final decision is that we should not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault. The Council has responded appropriately to Mr X’s concerns.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman