Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to implement traffic calming measures on a nearby road or act to remove a blockage on the roadside footpath. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to extend the speed limit and introduce traffic calming measures on a nearby road. She also says it has refused to clear a blockage on the roadside footpath. She says the lack of action is putting pedestrians’ safety at risk and causing distress. She also complained about poor complaints handling. She wants the Council to take appropriate action to ensure pedestrian safety.

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.

(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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its responses to Ms X, the Council said although it was committed to ensuring highway safety, it had limited resources and had to ensure public funds were used proportionately and effectively. It said its current traffic speed data did not justify implementing traffic calming measures at the location, so it would not agree to her request.
7. It said it had previously considered her request for a pedestrian crossing facility but due to physical restraints and other considerations, it could not currently agree to this.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately considered her request for traffic calming measures, but having considered available traffic and speed data, has decided it would not be a proportionate use of public funds. Although I accept Ms X does not agree with this decision, this is the Council’s decision to reach. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.
9. Ms X also complained the Council has failed to clear a blockage on the roadside footpath. She said the blockage increased the safety risks for pedestrians by forcing them to walk in the road. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not agree the affected area was a footpath. It said the road only had a footpath on the other side. It said it had previously considered Ms X’s request to create a second roadside footpath, but due to space limitations and other constraints, it could not do this. As the affected area was not a footpath, it would not act to remove the obstruction.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has considered Ms X’s request and explained its reasons for not taking further action. Although the Council has a duty to maintain highways it is responsible for, the Council does not consider the affected area to be part of the highway. Although Ms X may disagree with this position, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to warrant an investigation.
11. Ms X also complaints about how the Council has handled her complaint. She says it has not properly considered the matter and has disregarded her evidence. We will not investigate this. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaints handling, where we decide not to investigate the substantive issues raised.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman