Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to reports about highway conditions at a roundabout. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his report of overgrown highway vegetation and lane closure at a roundabout. He says the Council dismissed his report and subsequent complaint without a detailed investigation.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported the grass on the approaches to a roundabout as being overgrown and restricting visibility which could present a safety issue. He also raised concerns about lane closures on the roundabout approaches which he believed to be excessive and should be removed if they were unnecessary.
6. The Council responded to his report and when it inspected the site the grass had been cut to a level which it considered sufficient for highway safety, so no further work was required. It told Mr X that the lane closure had to be mirrored on all the approaches and exits to ensure highway safety for traffic leaving the roundabout and to remove confusion for drivers. Mr X was dissatisfied with the response and made a formal complaint. He was also dissatisfied with the complaint response and when he asked for it to be escalated he was referred to our service.
7. The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for maintain vegetation on the road network. The Council responded in a reasonable manner to Mr X’s report and considered that it had been dealt with sufficiently already. It explained to him the reasons why the lane closures had been mirrored on all the roundabout approaches.
8. Although members of the public are entitled to make comments on highway maintenance and management by a council, it is for the highway authority to decide what action is required in terms of highway management. There is no right of appeal against a highway authority’s decisions under the Highways Act 1980 for members of the public wishing to challenge their decisions.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

There is insufficient evidence that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result of failure by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to reports about highway conditions at a roundabout. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman