Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Mr X’s request for a lower speed limit on the road where he lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider his request for a lowering of the existing 30mph speed limit on the road where he lives. He says that speeding traffic at night disturbs his sleep and the Council and the local police force have colluded to dismiss his complaint.

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 the information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s policy of speed reduction and government guidance published on speed limit methodology.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says his sleep is disturbed by traffic noise from vehicles breaking the 30mph speed limit on the main road which runs through his village and near his home. He asked the Council to consider reducing the speed limit and it carried out speed monitoring. He says the monitoring site was poorly located but the Council says it was carried out according to its policy and national guidelines.
6. The Council asked the Police to provide statistics about personal injury accidents on the road because this is part of the assessment for weather a road has safety issues which may warrant speed reduction measures. The Police have also carried out periodic speed enforcement on the road to deter speed related offences.
7. The Council concluded that the current 30 mph speed limit was appropriate for an A-class highway with through traffic movement and speed reduction was not required. Mr X was dissatisfied that the neither the Council nor the Police authority sent officers to witness the noise nuisance at his home. The assessment of road safety is based on speed measurements over a specific stretch of road and noise at an individual residence is not a road safety factor which it would take into consideration.
8. 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. There is no evidence to show that the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when considering any changes to the speed limit.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Mr X’s request for a lower speed limit on the road where he lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman