Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a speed cushion. This is because the court or Mr Y’s insurer is better placed to consider this complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to deal with noise and vibrations, caused by vehicles driving over a speed cushion outside his home.
2. Mr Y says his home now has several large cracks in the walls and says he is often woken up by the noise of vehicles driving over the speed cushion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y contacted the Council about the speed cushion in July 2021. The Council responded, explaining the Department for Transport had carried out research into the impact of speed cushions. It said the research had found speed cushions would not cause vibrations to cause damage to properties nearby.
7. The Council then carried out a preliminary inspection of the speed cushion before it arranged a site visit to Mr Y’s property.
8. In August, the Council inspected the cracks in Mr Y’s property and found they were thermal cracks, not caused by the speed cushions. Mr Y then complained.
9. The Council responded in September. It said the cracks were thermal and vibrations had not caused the cracks. It also confirmed Mr Y had a surveyor’s report, which confirmed this. It said officers could not feel vibrations and noise was caused by loose parts on vehicles, not the speed cushion. It did not uphold Mr Y’s complaint. Mr Y approached us in March 2022.

Analysis

10. 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.
11. In this case, the Council visited Mr Y’s property and have inspected the road and speed cushion. The Council’s officers then used their professional judgement to form their decision about both the noise and the vibrations Mr Y had reported. It considered what was seen and heard, the surveyors report and the condition of Mr Y’s property.
12. As the Council has considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
13. Further, Mr Y’s injustice largely relates to the damage to his property and the costs to repair it. Mr Y may be able to make a claim through his home insurance for the costs of the repairs.
14. Mr Y can tell his insurer that he considers the Council to be responsible for the cost of the repairs. If the insurer agrees, it may make a claim on the Council’s insurance. If the Council disputes liability for the costs of the repairs, the insurer or Mr Y himself, may consider pursuing the claim through the courts. The courts can decide who is liable for the costs and if necessary, award damages.
15. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court is better placed to consider it and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman