Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to widen a narrow stretch of road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to widen a narrow stretch of road. Mrs X says the road is too narrow to accommodate a large lorry and a vehicle driving in the other direction. She has been forced to drive onto the pedestrian footway when larger vehicles approach from the other direction. The Council widened the road at other points and she would like it to also do so here.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph one, above.
8. The Council’s Highways Improvement Team investigated and considered the issues Mrs X raised. It said it would not widen the road at this location and clearly explained its reasons. It said the site was bordered by private garden walls adjoining the side of the carriageway and a private property whose boundary abuts the carriageway. It explained the only way to widen the road here would be to purchase the privately owned land and property frontages; relocate boundary walls and telegraph poles and remove fully established, privately owned trees.
9. It explained that given the significant financial costs associated with this, along with the need for all the landowners’ agreement, it would only consider taking such action if there was a pattern of collisions at the location which could be attributed to the width of the road. This is not the case at this location.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It considered and responded to the points Mrs X raised in her complaint and has clearly explained why it will not take action to widen the road here.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. I have seen no sign of fault in how the Council considered and decided this matter and so we cannot question it, even though Mrs X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman