Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install traffic calming measures in the complainant’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision. And we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I will call Mr B, says the Council is failing to act on the increasing volume and speed of traffic using his road. He also says it refuses to justify why it has preferred other areas for low traffic neighbourhoods.
2. He wants immediate implementation of traffic calming measures in his road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr B, including the Council’s responses to his complaints.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B says the council has failed to act on the increasing volume of traffic speed in his road.

8. The Council responded to Mr X. It provided traffic counts and collision data for Mr B’s Road. It also confirmed records for the three years ending in 2019 show no injury collision. The latest traffic count carried out in May 2021 showed speeds are almost the same as those recorded in 2016. Traffic volume has increased slightly.
9. The Council says the level and composition of traffic combined with the lack of injury collisions leads it decide there are other areas in the borough which have a greater priority need for traffic calming.
10. Our role is to look for administrative fault. We cannot tell councils how to spend their limited resources. These are decision for council officers and elected members. Without fault or flaw in the decision-making process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.
11. Mr B wants the Council to install traffic calming measures in his road. The Council has listened to his concerns and explained why it will not agree to his request. It has explained its decision. It is for the Council to decide when (and if) it should install traffic calming measures. Based on the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council. We cannot require the Council to install traffic calming measures.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman