Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic calming measures introduced by the Council. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should carry out alterations to traffic calming measures it has introduced on a road in his locale to make them safer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Prompted by accidents where vehicles had collided with and damaged posts installed by the Council as part of a traffic calming scheme, Mr X complained to the Council. He made suggestions about what further could be done to improve safety and make the posts more visible.
7. The Council fitted larger reflectors to the posts. However, in response to Mr X’s complaint, it explained that the traffic calming, associated road signs and road markings conformed to the relevant legislative requirements and that it did not consider amendments to the scheme were required but it would keep the site under review.
8. While I understand Mr X may have strong views on the need for further amendments to the scheme, decisions on it are for Council officers to take using their professional judgement. We do not act as a point of appeal and it is not our role to review the merits of the Council’s decisions. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman