Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to re-site a highway speed hump in 2022. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council moving a speed restriction table from its original position in the street to a site outside her home. She says that as a result she has been disturbed by noise and vibration from traffic passing over it. Recently her home has shown signs of cracking which she says is due to the excessive vibration. She wants the Council to remove the table and compensate for the damage.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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. Mrs X says the Council moved a speed table restriction to a position outside her home in early 2022. Since that time, she has suffered from noise and vibration from vehicles passing over it and her home has developed small cracks. She complained to the Council but it told her it was not prepared to move the feature.
6. The table was re-sited following the introduction of a 20mph restriction zone in Mrs X’s area. The new speed limit required the existing traffic calming features to be spaced at regular intervals and the table was re-sited to comply with this. The Council has inspected the table following her complaints but it says the feature complies with the national design standards for sinusoidal humps required by the Department for Transport.
7. The Council says it consulted with residents before the hump was re-located and it also posted the required statutory notices advising of the proposals. It is not prepared to re-locate the speed table further because it is part of the 20mph zone restrictions.
8. The Council has advised Mrs X to submit an insurance claim against it if she believes the damage to her home is a direct result of its actions. This would be considered by its insurers as with any other claim.
9. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

10. There is no evidence that the Council sited the traffic feature outside Mrs X’s home without following the correct procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to re-site a highway speed hump in 2022. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman