Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to lower the volume of the audible warning signals at a pedestrian crossing close to the complainant’s home. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council refuses to lower the volume of the audible signal on the pedestrian crossing outside his home.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a pedestrian crossing outside Mr X’s home. He says some years ago the Council reduced the volume of the audible signal (the beepers) during the day and turned the beepers off between 9pm and 7.30am.
6. Following a traffic accident, the Council replaced a pole on the crossing. Mr X complained the noise was louder than before and was also audible all night.
7. An Officer visited the site. They confirmed they asked for the beepers to be switched off at night, as before. However, the Officer also confirmed one of the beeper units was not working and he arranged for it to be repaired.
8. Mr X complained the noise was still louder than it was before the pole was replaced, and it was causing a nuisance.
9. The Council confirms the pole damaged in the traffic accident did not carry a beeper unit. The new pole which replaced the damaged one also does not have a beeper unit. It also confirms the existing units are now both working as they should be (one was previously not working) and are set to the lowest volume.
10. The Council also says the pedestrian crossing has been at the site since before Mr X’s home was built. The matter will be reviewed at some time in the future when the crossing will be due for an upgrade.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council confirms it has not replaced a beeper unit. It also confirms the volume is set at the lowest possible level and is not audible between 9pm and 7.30am.
12. From the Council’s response it appears one of the beeper units was previously not working, however this has been fixed. This may explain the louder volume from the crossing beepers. Mr X appears to have benefited from faulty equipment in the past and it is not fault for the Council to have corrected this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman