Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic calming measures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating this complaint and the police are better placed to consider speeding in the area.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to implement traffic calming measures in his area, particularly in not decreasing the speed limit and not installing speed bumps in the area.
2. Mr Y says his car has been damaged by cars speeding along his road and he is worried about safety in his area.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y contacted the Council about his concerns in 2021. The Council gave its final response in October. As part of its response, it explained that it had measured the average speed of traffic at particular points on route Mr Y was concerned about. It has explained how it has measured the average speed along the road, which was 23moh and that 85% of vehicles were travelling at approximately 28 mph or below.
6. The Council explained that the average speeds in the area meant speed bumps would not be appropriate on this stretch of the road, particularly as the route was used by both buses and HGVs and this would not fit with its design guidance. The Council further said that while it did not reject the request for traffic calming measures, it may not be in the forms preferred by Mr Y and would need to wait until further funding had become available.
7. Mr Y disagrees with this response, particularly as speed bumps are used at other points on the road, including on parts included on the bus routes and he says the speed limit is 20mph. He approached us in January 2022.

Analysis

8. 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.
9. The Council’s response sets out its reasons and its consideration of Mr Y’s request for further traffic calming measures. Mr Y says the speed limit is already 20mph. The Council’s measurements of speed along the specific roads Mr Y is concerned with and it has explained how it has used these measurements in its deliberation of the request.
10. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s view, it has made this decision based on relevant information and has explained its reasons to Mr Y. As the Council has properly considered the issue, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
11. Further, Mr Y is clearly concerned about speeding along the road. Any enforcement of speed limits would be a matter for the police. Consequently, any concerns about the speeding would be better considered by the police, rather than us.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman