Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has failed to properly consider reducing a speed limit on a diversion route in her area. She is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaint.
2. Miss Y is concerned about aggressive driving, which she feels is increasingly unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. Miss Y says the issue has caused upset, worry and frustration.

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 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)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following a diversion due to significant highway maintenance works in her area, Miss Y complained to the Council about the existing speed limit of 40mph, which she said was too high. She therefore asked the Council to reduce the speed limit to 30mph.
8. The Council’s response said it had considered the concerns Miss Y and other residents had raised and had acted to try to improve the conditions in the area while the other maintenance works were ongoing. This had included trimming hedges back to improve sight lines, renewing road markings and making improvements to the road surface where needed. It also said it was collaborating with the local police force to explore the best ways to maintain safety. It commented that temporary changes to speed limits were often not fully observed by the public but had asked the police’s collision officer to attend the site again, to try to find the most appropriate response to the issue. The Council also apologised for not having previously responded to Miss Y’s complaint. Miss Y was unhappy with the response and asked the Council to reconsider her complaint.
9. The Council responded further. It explained that it had worked with local police, who had monitored local speeds and monitored driver behaviour, blocked off junctions where drivers were use the road as a rat run, additional signs to remind drivers of the speed limit and for HGV drivers, as well as the measures mentioned in the previous response.
10. The Council also said that speed reductions had been considered, but temporary speed limits were often ignored by the public without enforcement. The police monitoring had however found that drivers were complying with the speed limit in place. Following this response, as the speed limit had not been reduced, Miss Y approached us.
11. 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.
12. In this case, the Council has taken the steps to consider the speed limit and road safety during the temporary diversion. It has worked with the local police to monitor the speed of traffic and driver behaviour. The Council has also taken other steps available to it to improve road safety measures in the area, such as the additional signage in the area.
13. While Miss Y may disagree with the Council’s decision not to reduce the speed limit, the Council’s actions show it has considered the road’s safety during the diversion, and where it has felt necessary, has taken action. The Council has considered the issues involved, views of relevant parties such as the police and the concerns raised. These are the steps we would expect it to take in order to consider the reduction of a speed limit. Consequently, the Council has properly considered the issue, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we will not investigate.
14. As we are not considering the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with and responded to Miss Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman