Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y is representing a large group of residents and complains about safety risks on a school walking route. She says the Council has failed to take action to reduce risk.
2. Mrs Y thinks the Council should properly investigate her concerns and implement road traffic safety measures.

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 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 Mrs Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y complained to the Council on behalf of a large group of residents. She raised concerns about a residential street being used as a turning circle, and a school walking route being unsafe. The Council explained that improvements had occurred in recent years, including installation of speed cushions and warning lights being used outside of the school. The Council explained that other improvements, such as widening of footpaths, would be difficult as it would involve securing third-party land. The Council explained its Scheme Pipeline, where highway improvements can be raised and if progressed through the stages will form part of the annual programme. It highlighted several schemes linked to concerns Mrs Y raised.
8. The Council explained that it continues to work closely with the local school, to encourage safe driving. It said it was unable to make any “quick wins” but continued working with the school to develop a Travel Plan.
9. From evidence I have seen, the Council remains in communication with local councillors and the school. It continues to monitor casualty information. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.
10. Mrs Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman