Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council is refusing to reinstate a keep clear sign on the road. He says there have been several near misses and accidents as a result.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr y contacted the Council, asking it to repaint a faded Keep Clear sign on a junction in January 2020. The Council told Mr Y that road markings were repainted as part of an ongoing program.
7. Mr Y then complained to the Council, that the markings had not been repainted in May 2021. The Council responded in July. It said that as the road had a speed limit of 30 mph, it was not a priority for repainting. Mr Y responded, saying the road had a speed limit of 40 mph and asked instead that the Council lower the limit to 30mph if it was not planning to repaint the markings.
8. The Council later gave its final response in September 2021. It apologised for the incorrect information in its original response. It explained the speed limit had been considered and would remain at 40mph, in accordance with its speed management strategy. It also said that while the markings were faded, it would be renewed as part of a future project across the Council’s area.
9. The Council also said the higher speed limit did not mean the faded markings were dangerous, as there was a give way sign, which would warn other drivers that there was a junction ahead. It also said that it had received no other reports of the markings making the junction unsafe and agreed to continue to monitor the road to ensure it was safe until the marking renewal project could be started. Mr Y then approached us, asking us to investigate the issue.

Analysis

10. The Council has explained it intends to renew the road markings as part of a future project across the area. It considered whether it needed to bring the renew of the road markings Mr Y complained about after receiving his complaint. It initially did this with consideration of its speed limit being 30 mph.
11. However, when Mr Y made the Council aware this was incorrect, the Council reconsidered its position, and whether the junction had enough measures to ensure its safety. It found that although it had a 40mph limit, not 30mph, there was signage to warn motorists of the junction and the need to give way. It said this was enough to make the junction safe and so it said it would continue to monitor the markings Mr Y had complained about, but it would wait to renew the markings as part of the future project as originally planned.
12. It also considered the speed of the road. It explained that the speed was appropriate and in line with its speed management strategy. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decision, both on the speed limit and not to renew the line markings, 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.
13. As the Council considered the issue properly, with reference to relevant factors including the safety of the road, signs already in place and the correct speed limit in its latter response, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman