Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a traffic diversion which is impacting Ms X’s road and home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly plan the diversion route which has resulted in HGV traffic getting stuck in her road and surrounding area and causing cracks to her property. She says the signage used to indicate the diversion has been inadequate and not appropriate for foreign drivers. She wants the heavy traffic removed from her local roads and for the cracks in her property to be fixed.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council that due to a road closure for utility works, traffic and particularly HGV traffic began using her road and similar unsuitable roads for such traffic. She said this was causing much disruption and that cracks had appeared in her house.
6. The Council explained a suitable diversion had been agreed for the works but that it could not stop traffic using alternative routes. It said its inspectors had visited the site to ensure the utility company was following the regulations and conditions in place and that it had been asked to change inappropriate signage. It told Ms X that while it, as the Highways Authority, will oversee all work on its road network, the work promotor is responsible for the set up and running of the site. It suggested Ms X contact the utility company direct in relation to any damage to her property.
7. Ms X has been caused disruption and inconvenience by the diverted traffic. However, this is not evidence of fault by the Council. A diversion route was set up but the Council cannot stop traffic using alternative, less suitable routes and it spoke to the utility company about appropriate signage.
8. If Ms X believes her property has been damaged as a result of heavy traffic, she may want to consider seeking advice initially from her insurance company.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman