Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a width restriction installed on a road by the Council. There is no statutory obligation on the Council to follow the Government guidance. And we cannot decide whether the Council is liable for damage to the complainant’s car. It is reasonable for him to pursue his claim for compensation in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr J, complains his car was damaged after going through a width restriction. He says the width restriction does not conform to guidance issued by the Department for Transport. He wants the Council to change the sign on the width restriction and pay him £400 for damage to his car.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(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.
4. The Act 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr J and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr J says the Council has not followed the Government’s guidance on width restrictions. However, he has provided a letter from the Department for Transport which says:

“The [Traffic Signs Manual] is guidance issued by the Department as “good practice guidance” and provides local authorities advice on good working practices which they can choose to adopt or choose to ignore. Local authorities do not have to conform to good practice guidance; however the Department believes that conformance to the guidance is desirable.”

8. So, it is clear the Council has no legal duty to follow the guidance. It has advised the sign has been in place for more than 20 years and was designed for the traffic issues at that time. It will review the width restriction with the wider traffic network later this year.
9. I have seen no evidence of fault in the width restriction or sign.
10. Mr J says his car was damaged because of Council negligence. Only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation.
11. I cannot decide whether the Council has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr J’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers.
12. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr J cannot do this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. And it is reasonable for him to pursue his claim for damage in the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman