Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s introduction of a restricted turn junction on a road near where he lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has installed a no‑right turn at a junction and a one‑way section of road where he lives.
2. Mr X says:
• the restrictions have created a dangerous situation and he has witnessed several near misses at the site;
• drivers often ignore the restrictions;
• the restrictions take traffic to a dead end so drivers obeying them have to turn round and double back in a busy residential area, increasing traffic flow on a street near his home;
• he has nearly been hit by drivers ignoring the turning restriction on two occasions.
3. Mr X wants the highway returned to how it was before the changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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

6. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to determine if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the process an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council explained its assessment and modelling of the of the area’s traffic led to it putting in place the junction restriction and stretch of one-way street. Officers say the aim was to limit drivers using back roads as a ‘rat run’ who may be trying to avoid other existing traffic restrictions elsewhere. The Council advised Mr X to report to the police any incidents he witnesses where drivers ignored the restrictions, because it is the police which has the powers to enforce them.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The Council assessed the impacts of the scheme with a legitimate aim of deterring use of the back roads. Officers considered appropriate evidence and information before implementing the scheme. We recognise Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision to install the measures. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there had been Council fault in the highways work here, we would not investigate. We recognise Mr X considers the changes to the highway have made the location more dangerous and the area around it busier. But the traffic restrictions do not directly affect the street on which Mr X lives. None of the impacts he presents in his complain to us, as set out in paragraph two above, nor the total of those impacts, amount to a significant personal injustice to him which warrants us investigating. We note Mr X says he has twice nearly been hit by drivers ignoring the turn restriction. But such incidents would be the direct result of error by the drivers not complying with road signs, not due to actions by Council officers. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of justify an investigation.
11. We understand Mr X wants the highway changed back to the way it was before. We cannot order councils to do works to a particular part of their highway, even if we have received a complaint about it. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman