Summary: Ms X complained about a pedestrian crossing near her home. There was fault with the Council for its delay in contacting Transport for London which prolonged Ms X’s avoidable injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council installed a new signalised pedestrian crossing outside her home without undertaking a public consultation. She said the noise and vibrations affect her quality of life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and supporting information.
6. I have also considered the Council’s response to Ms X and to my enquiries.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

8. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 23 (s23) states that councils can establish crossings for pedestrians and may alter or remove any such crossings. It states that councils must give public notice of the proposal and consult the police.
9. The Highways Act 1980 section 90C (s90C) sets out who councils should consult with and how they should notify the public about the proposal for a road hump. Similarly, to the Road Traffic Act, councils are required to consult only the police.
10. The Act states that councils should also publish a notice in a local newspaper and place a notice at appropriate points along the highway. The notice should state the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump and state the address to which and the period within any objections to the proposal may be sent.

Healthy Streets

11. As part of the Council’s Healthy Streets deign ethos, it encourages the inclusion of level surfaces for pedestrian (the speed table). This makes the highway environment more pedestrian (and wheelchair) friendly and helps reduce speed at the same time.

What happened

Background

12. In 2018, the Council received a request from a former Neighbourhood Committee Chair on behalf of local residents for an improved pedestrian crossing on the road where Ms X lives. At the time there was a centre island refuge informal crossing point. The Council carried out a pedestrian and cyclist survey in 2019, created a preliminary design for the crossing in early 2020 before writing to the local residents in February.
13. The letter was sent to all occupants of properties along the stretch of affected road including Ms X. The letter notified residents that a new crossing in line with current Department for Transport and Transport for London (TfL) design standards would be constructed towards the end of March 2020.
14. A week later, the Council erected s23/s90C site notices containing detailed information of the scheme. It provided details of where the drawings could be inspected and how people could make representations.
15. The Covid-19 pandemic halted the process. Once works could re-start, the Council sent out work notification letters to residents confirming the revised start date. The Council installed the crossing in May 2021.

Ms X reported concerns

16. Soon after the installation of the crossing, Ms X contacted the Council. She raised concerns about the speed of the traffic and the noise and vibration caused by vehicles passing over the speed table. She also said the noise and light coming from the ‘bleeper’ was intrusive and kept her awake at night.
17. The Council visited the location to observe the vehicles. The Council said it did not detect any excessive noise or vibration form any vehicle (including a skip lorry) and concluded the light traffic was moving slowly and smoothly.
18. The Council said it passed on the issue of the ‘bleeper’ to TfL which is the authority responsible for the design, maintenance and installation of the traffic signals.
19. In August 2021, Ms X contacted her local MP regarding the crossing. This was passed on to the Council who responded. It explained the Council had installed a speed table to make the environment more pedestrian friendly and that it was designed in line with recommended standards.

Formal complaint

20. In April 2022, Ms X contacted the Council. She complained that the location and type of crossing was intrusive due to the bleeping and vibration of vehicles travelling over the hump. She said the Council did not consult her; it only sent a letter informing the works would take place.
21. The Council agreed the letter sent to Ms X was a notification rather than a consultation. The notices posted near the site contained detailed information of the scheme and set out how to make representations.
22. The Council confirmed the speed table was built to comply with relevant standards. It said the table is 6m in length to accommodate buses and the ramps are 2m long to give a shallow gradient to prevent thumping.
23. The Council contacted TfL on 7 April and requested that the ‘bleeper’ be turned down as it had received a complaint from Ms X.
24. TfL visited the site on 11 April 2022. It said upon inspection, the audible timings were set correctly to switch off at 10pm, and back on at 7am. TfL confirmed that it had reduced the sound on both sides to the lowest they can be.

My findings

25. From the evidence I have seen, the Council planned, designed and implemented the new crossing predominantly in line with the relevant legislation. I have not seen evidence the Council published a section 90C notice in a local newspaper in line with the Highways Act. It did erect notices and send letters to local residents. Therefore, the omission of a newspaper notice would not have been likely to cause Ms X any injustice as she was aware of the proposal and had the opportunity to make representations.
26. I appreciate that Ms X considers the speed and vibration of the vehicles to be unacceptable. However, the Council visited the site and concluded the speed table had slowed vehicles down and the noise/vibration was within normal parameters. This was the Council’s decision to make and provided I am satisfied the Council considered the relevant information when reaching its decision, I cannot question it.
27. The issue of the bleeping pedestrian crossing was raised by Ms X in May 2021. The Council told her that it had passed the matter on to TfL who were responsible for this. From the evidence I have seen, the Council did not contact TfL until April 2022 when Ms X made a formal complaint. This was fault.
28. Within 5 days of the Council’s contact, TfL visited the site and reduced the sound level of the bleeper. On balance, I believe the Council’s delay in contacting TfL meant that Ms X experienced the loud bleeper for almost a year longer than necessary. This affected her amenity which was an injustice caused by the fault of the Council.
29. Ms X’s loss of amenity was limited due to the bleeper noise being intermittent between 7am-10pm, and not constant or through the night. The remedy below reflects this.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for its delay in contacting Transport for London about the pedestrian crossing bleeper.
2. Pay Ms X £200 for the loss of amenity she experienced for a longer period because of the Council’s delay.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I found fault with the Council for its delay in contacting Transport for London about a pedestrian crossing. This caused Ms X to experience a loss of amenity for longer than necessary.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman