Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils decision to reduce the length of the thirty-mile speed limit on the main road through the complainant’s village. We are unlikely to find fault in the process the Council followed leading to the decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council has reduced the length of the thirty miles per hour (mph) zone on the main road through his village. He says residents are concerned about road safety and want a Traffic Regulation Order imposed, returning the start of the thirty mph zone to its original location.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr. X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has moved the signs marking the start of the thirty mph zone on a road close to Mr X’s home.
6. It says the original location of the speed limit signs did not follow Department for Transport regulations and there was no Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in place. Therefore, the speed limit was unenforceable, and the Council could not adopt the road as a public highway.
7. The Council sought the opinions of its road safety team and the Police. It considered the matter at a virtual meeting attended by Council Officers, elected Members and members of the public.
8. Three alternatives were considered. However, the road safety team and the Police did not support two of them as they would not satisfy Department for Transport guidelines and were not enforceable.
9. The Council agreed a compromise which added two new lighting columns to introduce the signs and speed limit seventy metres from the road junction. This satisfies the guidance, is enforceable and is supported by the road safety officers and the Police.
10. Mr X says he and other residents are concerned about road safety and want the speed limit and signs returned to their original location. However, I have seen no evidence to show the Council did not consider the relevant legislation or failed to consult the relevant organisations before deciding to permanently move the speed limit zone and signs. Further investigation is therefore unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision-making process. Without fault in the process, we cannot consider the merits of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because We are unlikely to find fault in the process the Council followed leading to the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman