Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to respond to his enquiries about a dangerous stretch of road near his property. We found the Council failed to respond to his enquiries on several occasions causing frustration and possible delay to the speed reduction. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, pay him £100 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Milton Keynes Council (the Council) failed to respond properly to his enquiries and complaints about the dangerous highways situation outside his property and possible solutions. It delayed on many occasions responding to his communication and failed to follow through on proposed actions. This caused Mr B distress and inconvenience along with the continuing worry about the dangers of the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B first contacted the Council on 20 February 2024 about a dangerous stretch of road outside his property. He wanted someone to visit to discuss options for making it safer. He said there had been several ‘near-misses’ and his driveway was being damaged.
7. After a further email from Mr B, the Council visited on 4 March 2024. After chasing the Council, but hearing nothing, Mr B complained to his MP. The previous day there had been an accident at the neighbouring property where a car crashed into the garden. The MP passed the complaint to the Council.
8. The Council contacted Mr B to say it will be discussion the case shortly, but that police records only showed one minor collision nearby.
9. Mr B made a formal complaint on 13 May 2024 and reported another incident two days later. The Council replied saying it had logged the incident, and it would be carrying out a speed survey shortly.
10. On 20 May 2024 the Council provided a plan of action in its stage one response. It confirmed it would carry out a speed survey and then sharing the results with the police, with a view to reducing the speed limit on that stretch of road. While on site it would also look at the possibility of any signage or lining improvements.
11. Mr B chased the Council at the end of July 2024 and then made another complaint on 13 August 2024. Officer C responded saying they had sent an email after the previous visit, but Mr B had not received it. Officer C would visit the site on 15 August 2024 to further investigate the boundaries between Mr B’s property and the highway and consider other options. They said the road safety team had also agreed to improve the signage and road linings and would be taking drawings and notes in preparation.
12. Officer C died suddenly. The Council did not contact Mr B. He chased the Council on four occasions in September and October 2024. He made a further complaint on 11 November 2024.
13. On 13 December 2024 the Council responded to Mr B and explained that Officer C had died. The Council could not find any of his notes and would have to do a further site visit. It said Officer C’s view was that the main problem was speed and the best solution was a reduction in the speed limit which would probably be progressed in the next few of months.
14. In January 2025 Mr B enquired about options should the speed reduction not be effective and about installing a kerb by his property. The Council said it was concentrating on the speed reduction issue and would not carry out work on private properties. Mr B said he was not asking for this. The Council directed him to us.
15. In April 2025 the Council told us the speed reduction application was in progress and a formal consultation was now taking place. It said there was insufficient room to install a kerb on the highway. It did not update Mr B.
16. In June 2025 Mr B told me that the speed limit had now been reduced. In response to my enquiries the Council said an informal consultation took place in January and February, followed by a statutory consultation in April and May. There were no objections so the speed limit was reduced on 17 June 2025, with signage installed shortly afterwards. It did not update Mr B.
17. Mr B says there are still some markings in the road which need changing.
18. The Council said it did not normally keep records to verbal communication or informal meetings with residents. It said Officer C’s death was sudden and significantly affected officers in the team. While key stakeholders were notified it said it did not inform residents of such an event. It said that if communication had been via the customer service system it would have been picked up sooner. But as it was going to Officer C’s email address the Council was not aware of the issue until Mr B made a further complaint on 13 November 2024. The Council said it sent a request to the IT team to put an automated notice on Officer C’s email account on 11 September 2024.

Analysis

19. The Council visited Mr B within two weeks of his first request which was very prompt. It then failed to make any contact until May 2024 after Mr B had complained. I consider it would have been reasonable to have contacted him again within a month, so there was a delay of a month.
20. After the action plan was produced Officer C said he sent an email to Mr B, but he did not receive it. I have not seen evidence of the email. So, another two months went by with no update causing Mr B to chase the matter again.
21. Unfortunately, Officer C then died suddenly which understandably caused a delay in progressing the case. I further understand that the matter was very upsetting for other members of staff and there was an increase in the amount of work for the team. However, given Mr B had received an action plan in May 2024 and had a named contact with Officer C who was dealing with it, I consider it was reasonable to expect the Council to provide an update to Mr B without him having to complain again two months later. The failure to do so was fault.
22. I note the Council says it requested an automated note be put on Officer C’s emails, but Mr B did not receive anything, so I can only assume it was not successfully applied.
23. I also consider officers should hold notes of ongoing cases to enable others to pick up the work more quickly in the event of unplanned absence. This may have speeded up the process in this case and meant a second site visit was not necessary.
24. Mr B has been caused frustration and inconvenience on multiple occasions due to the lack of communication with him.
25. Once the Council was aware of the case, it progressed the matter without delay following the statutory process, resulting in a reduced speed limit.

Back to top

Action

26. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of the final decision:
• apologises to Mr B and pays him £100; and
• reminds officers of the need to keep notes of ongoing cases to ensure matters can be picked up promptly in the event of unexpected absence and delays avoided.
27. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman