Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about temporary traffic lights in Mr X’s area. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly respond to his complaints about unreliable temporary traffic lights. He says that without a filter in place they cause significant traffic congestion when they fail was happened on a number of occasions. He says the Council’s response to his complaint was poor.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported traffic congestion to the Council following several failures of temporary traffic lights at a junction on his commute to work. He suggested the lights should either be replaced by permanent three-way lights or a filter added to the temporary lights to prevent congestion slowing traffic.
6. The Council advised Mr X to report any failures of the signals to its highways contractor who is responsible for their maintenance. He was dissatisfied with this response because he considers traffic management to be a responsibility of the Council highway authority, not a private contractor.
7. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It failed to properly explain to him that maintenance of the existing lights and suggestions to alter the traffic priority are separate matters. The Council as highway authority would have to consider formal change by traffic order of a junction and signalling priority whilst the contractor would carry out any repairs to existing signalling if it was faulty.
8. However, any injustice caused by the Council’s lack of clarity would not change the procedure and there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused to Mr X over a period of time which would warrant an investigation now.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about temporary traffic lights in Mr X’s area. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman