Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about traffic calming measures introduced in her area. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to change the location of a speed hump introduced as part of traffic calming measures near her home. She says since its installation, traffic noise has increased which is causing her distress. She wants the Council to relocate the speed hump.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council completed a public consultation on a proposal to introduce traffic calming measures in Ms X’s area. Ms X responded to the consultation.
6. After the installation works, Ms X complained to the Council. She said the speed hump installed near her property had increased traffic noise, as vehicles did not slow down as they approached it. She said the increased noise of vehicles going over the speed hump was reducing her quality of life and causing distress.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said it had consulted on the scheme and noted that she had responded and been in favour of it. It acknowledged her concern that vehicles were not slowing down when travelling down her road and said, as a result, it would carry out a traffic survey to compare current vehicle speeds to those recorded prior to the measures being introduced.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council completed a public consultation prior to introducing the scheme and considered Ms X’s views as part of this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision to introduce the traffic calming measures to warrant an investigation.
9. In its response to her complaint, the Council has agreed to review the effectiveness of the speed hump on her road. This is an appropriate response to the concerns she has raised. An investigation by us would not achieve anything more or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman