Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking responsibility for the timing of temporary traffic lights at highway works by a water company which it permitted, and officers not contacting the company after he reported the matter. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the issues complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where a water company did works on a road about three miles from his property. The Council issued a permit for the company to work on the highway and install temporary traffic lights during the works. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to accept responsibility for the traffic lights not giving cyclists enough time to get through the road works;
2. did not contact the water company to tell them of the problem.
2. Mr X says whenever he cycled through the road works, he did not have enough time to get through and kept meeting oncoming traffic. He says he has been caused trouble by trying to get the Council to accept responsibility for the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The water company applied for and received a permit from the Council to do the works on the highway in 2025. The road works and temporary traffic lights were in place for about five weeks. Mr X considers the Council was responsible for the timings used on the temporary traffic lights. The Council says the traffic management and its compliance with the relevant codes of practice at the works was the responsibility of the water company.
6. Even if there was fault by the Council in the ways Mr X describes, we will not investigate. Mr X says he is a leisure cyclist who first identified the traffic light timing problem on one of his rides. We recognise Mr X may have been caused some anxiety going through the lights on that first occasion. But this is not a sufficiently significant injustice to justify us investigating. The water company cleared the road works after about five weeks, so the traffic lights were in place for quite a short period. Mr X says he returned to the site of the road works several times on further leisure rides during that period and experienced the same problem with the lights. But Mr X was not required to take a particular route, as he was riding for leisure. It was his choice to return to the same location, once he was aware of the traffic lights’ timing, and further expose himself to the same issue. We understand Mr X has spent time and been caused some trouble in pursuing the matter. But it was his decision to do so. Neither this time and trouble nor the impacts on him of the matters complained of amount to such significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating here.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman