Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his request for a further road safety assessment on the road near his home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, and in any case, we could not achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision on his request to carry out further consideration of traffic calming measures on a road near his home. Mr X told the Council he believed his home had been unnecessarily damaged because of the dangerous state of the road layout.
2. Mr X also said the Council did not take all the relevant information into account when it decided it would not take any action and it then declined to consider information, he sent it.
3. Mr X said because of this, the road near his home remains in a dangerous state, and he now has the unnecessary apprehension of road traffic collisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X sent the Council detailed information about road traffic incidents near his home since 2000. Mr X said he was unhappy with the extent of the information the Council used to consider whether it needed to take action.
8. The Council replied to Mr X and gave him an explanation about its decision making. Given the Council’s reply here, taken along with it’s published strategy, it is unlikely we would find fault it decided not to prioritise Mr X’s request for additional traffic calming measures or agree his request to carry out a reassessment.
9. Mr X also complained because the Council had not replaced a safety bollard after a recent collision and said his home had subsequently been damaged because of the Council’s negligence.
10. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints relating to liability for property damage arising from claims of negligence. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence, only a court can decide whether the problem should have been dealt with by the council before it caused damage, or if the council is liable to pay damage for the loss a person has suffered.
11. In any case, setting these matters aside, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. Mr X wants the Council to implement traffic calming measures, and this is not something we could direct the Council to do.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman