Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request to reduce the speed limit and repairs to the road outside his home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his request for a reduction in the speed limit for the road outside his home. He also complains of potholes on this road and the Council’s general approach to his and other residents’ concerns about road safety. He wants the Council to reduce the speed limit, repair the potholes and dismiss the Chief Executive.

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 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Speed limits

7. In its complaint response, the Council has explained how it had decided the current speed limit was appropriate. It noted the road’s classification (Priority Route 2) and its rural character with few residential frontages on both sides. The Council also noted there was limited if any risk to pedestrians as large parts of the road had no footways. The Council also confirmed responsibility for enforcing speed limits lie with the local police.
8. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. As highways authority, it is the Council’s role to set local speed limits appropriate for the individual road, based on local need and all other considerations. The Council has considered Mr X’s request and explained how it has reached its decision and why it is satisfied the current limit is appropriate. I accept Mr X strongly disagrees with this decision, but is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
9. We cannot question a decision because someone disagrees with it. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Road repairs/potholes

10. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to reasonably maintain and repair the highway so it is free of danger to all users. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways, depending on their classification, and carry out repairs where necessary. The level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and the threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
11. If a person considers a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for and it is no longer safe, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out work needed to the highway.
12. If the highways authority does not respond in time or does not accept it is responsible for maintaining the road, the person may apply to the Crown court for such an order.
13. Mr X may use this process to try to get the Council to carry out work on the road. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to be expected to use his right to go to court about this matter.
14. Further, the court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider this element of Mr X’s complaint.
15. In this case, the Council has explained it has recently inspected the highway and identified some issues that do not currently present a risk to road safety that requires immediate attention. The Council has however added the repair works to its future maintenance plan and will continue to monitor the road for further defects.
16. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s approach as it is entitled to make a judgement on where to prioritise its resources for highways maintenance based on its professional assessment. Consequently, we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify use of public resources to do so.
17. One of the outcomes Mr X is seeking by bringing his complaint to us was for the Council’s Chief Executive to be dismissed. Our role is to look into a council’s actions as a corporate body, rather than to investigate individual employee actions. Because of this, we would not be able to achieve this outcome as any disciplinary actions are matters for the Council and its employees, and fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman