Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about vehicle speeds and the condition of the road outside Mr X’s home. There is no direct connection between the Council’s alleged faults and any significant injustice to Mr X. Mr X can also take court action about the road’s condition.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with problems on the road outside his home. He says the road is dangerous as drivers break the speed limit, making it hard to drive out of his driveway and causing difficulty when walking. Mr X also says the Council did not deal properly with his complaint about the matter, which put him to time and trouble.

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 caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and looked at online maps and photographs of the road. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. On the narrow road where Mr X lives, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The speed limit changes from 60 mph to 30mph near Mr X’s home.
6. Where the speed limit changes, there was a sign on each side of the road. One is missing. The Council said it would replace that sign by 19 November 2021. Mr X reports that did not happen. On the opposite side of the road, the speed limit sign was overgrown by a hedgerow. The Council said it would either have the landowner cut the hedge back or would cut the hedge itself to make the sign more visible. Mr X reports that did not happen either.
7. Online photographs taken in November 2021 show the sign is only visible from relatively close. However, it is visible despite the hedge still having leaves in the photograph. I also note vehicles travelling in that direction are almost at a bend on a narrow road. Drivers would know they should be able to stop safely within the road space they can see. Given those factors, the injustice Mr X claims - difficulties caused by speeding vehicles - stem directly from the unsafe actions of drivers and not directly from any fault by the Council. If drivers are speeding in such conditions when a speed limit sign is visible, it is speculative to suggest they would not do so if the sign were more visible, or if there were two signs. So I do not consider the Council’s alleged fault directly causes Mr X a significant injustice.
8. Mr X says there is inconsistency in the Council’s provision of speed limit repeater signs and street lighting elsewhere but not on this stretch of road. However, Mr X also said he was not asking for such measures where he lives. Inconsistency does not automatically mean fault. As I have explained, any injustice in practical terms results directly from the actions of drivers, not the Council. So I do not consider the absence of those features causes Mr X a significant injustice.
9. Mr X says the Council is not properly investigating the use of and speed on this stretch of road. The Council says it must prioritise such work and will liaise with the police (with whom it knows Mr X has been in contact) and react as necessary to any police concerns. It is unlikely we would find fault in such an approach. Moreover, as I have explained, the Council is not responsible if drivers choose to drive too fast. So there is no direct connection between the Council’s alleged fault and the impact on Mr X.
10. Mr X believes the Council should resurface the road where he lives and repaint the white lines. This is an argument the road is out of repair. Anyone who believes the road is out of repair can serve notice on the Council and then apply for a court order if the Council does not do the desired works. (Highways Act 1980, section 56) So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point.
11. The law specifically provides this route for such situations. The law also specifically gives the Council the right to use a special defence in such situations. (Highways Act 1980, section 58) The court can consider those matters then make a binding order for works if it sees fit, which the Ombudsman cannot do. There might be some cost to court action, but that is not automatically a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate instead. Overall, I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court on this point.
12. Mr X is concerned about the creation of a junction on the road near his home, for an access road to new buildings. A planning inspector acting for the relevant Secretary of State approved the new junction and road. It was not the Council’s decision. Therefore the Council’s actions in considering or commenting on those proposals did not directly create the current situation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the Secretary’s of State’s actions. We cannot achieve anything meaningful by investigating this point.
13. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues. So I shall not investigate this point.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is mainly because there is no direct connection between the Council’s alleged faults and any significant injustice to Mr X. Mr X can also take court action about the road’s state of repair.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman