Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that it will not reduce the speed limit through his village. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to reduce the speed limit in his village. He says speeding motorists are putting residents at risk. He wants the Council to agree to lower the speed limit through his village. He also complains about poor complaints handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X states there has been a history of collisions caused by speeding traffic on the main road through his village. He asked the Council to reduce the speed limit, but the Council has refused to do so.
7. In its complaint responses, the Council explained how it had reached its decision that the current limit was appropriate. It said it had considered the government guidance on setting local speed limits, Police collision data, analysis of traffic speeds and site assessments.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. As highways authority, it is the Council’s role to set local speed limits that are appropriate for the individual road, reflect local need and which take into account all local considerations. The Council has considered Mr X’s request and explained how it has reached its decision and why it is satisfied the current limit is appropriate. I accept Mr X disagrees with this decision, but this is the Council’s decision to make.
9. We cannot question a decision because someone disagrees with it. There must be evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X also complains about delays in the handling of his complaint. We will not investigate this as it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints about complaints handling, where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman