Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not addressed his concerns about heavy goods vehicles regularly using the road he lives on. Mr X said this is causing damage to his property. There was some fault by the Council as it had not established whether additional signage was needed to enforce the site. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to consider whether the site needed additional signage and whether it needed to pass the matter to its Trading Standards team.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the level of action the Council has taken following his reports about heavy vehicles using the road he lives on.
2. Mr X said the heavy vehicles are causing damage to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated whether any fault has contributed to Mr X’s property being damaged. Should Mr X want to pursue the Council for damage to his property he can make a claim against the Council and has been given the information by the Council to do this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mr X lives on a road which has restrictions for vehicles over 7.5 tonnes.
9. In mid-2023, the Council’s highways team received complaints from residents about high goods vehicles travelling along the road where Mr X lives. The Council passed this to its Trading Standards team to consider the matter.
10. In July 2023, Trading Standards identified issues with signage along the road, namely there were no signs on one end of the road about the restrictions for heavy goods vehicles. This meant Trading Standards could not enforce against heavy goods vehicles using the road.
11. In April 2024, Mr X contacted the Council by telephone and complained about the increased number of heavy goods vehicles travelling along his road. Mr X explained he believed the vibrations from these vehicles was damaging his property. Mr X asked the Council to put in place traffic calming measures.
12. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-April 2024. The Council said:
• It would not put in place traffic calming measures as these were in place already and there was no history of collisions on the road.
• Trading Standards were responsible for enforcing against vehicles breaching the weight restriction of the road but must prioritise roads with a collision history.
• It was arranging a traffic survey for the road and had sent the local parish council a lorry tool kit to monitor the number of heavy goods vehicles on the road.
• Mr X could complete a claim form if he wanted to claim for any damage to his property.
13. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to consider his complaint at the next stage of its complaints process. The Council told Mr X it would not consider his complaint further as it had provided him with information on how he could make a claim for damage to his property. The Council also said it would consider the results of the lorry watch and see if Trading Standards would take any action.
14. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries, the Council said its policy for Trading Standards enforcement did not say how sites are prioritised for enforcement. The Council explained it decided which sites Trading Standards should monitor based on available resources, complaints received about the site and Highways priorities. The Council said Trading Standards grants resources to one weight restriction enforcement activity per month on a highways priority list. If a site is added to the list then another site is removed.
15. The Council said for Mr X’s road Trading Standards identified there was an issue with signage on the road in July 2023 and referred this to the Highways team. The Highways team could not find any issues with the signage on Mr X’s road.

Analysis

16. Mr X asked the Council to out in place further traffic calming measures. The Council decided not to put in place more traffic calming measures on the road. It decided this based on there being no history of collisions and there were already some traffic calming measures in place further along the road from where Mr X lives. I do not consider the Council at fault for this decision. It has considered whether to put additional measures in place and explained its rational for deciding against this.
17. In relation to carrying out enforcement against heavy goods vehicles along the road the Council’s Trading Standards team identified issues with signage in July 2023. This meant Trading Standards said it could not carry out enforcement along this road. Trading Standards referred the matter back to the Highway’s team but the Highways team said the signage was acceptable. It is not clear whether this has been resolved or whether any further action was taken. This was fault. It is also not clear whether the Council considered the data from the lorry tool kit.
18. I cannot say whether the Council’s Trading Standards team should carry out enforcement action on the road. Until the signage issues are resolved, the road Mr X lives on cannot be considered for enforcement.

Back to top

Agreed Action

19. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed carry out the following:
• The Council’s Highways and Trading Standards teams should consider the site again and carry out the following:
1. Work together to decide whether any additional signage is needed on this road for enforcement action.
2. If additional signage is needed the Council’s Highways team should put this in place.
3. Write to Mr X explaining whether it will refer the matter to Trading Standards after considering the evidence it received from the lorry tool kit and traffic survey.
20. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

21. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman