Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has implemented a traffic calming scheme on the outskirts of his village. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a junction where two side roads meet a more major road on the edge a village. He complains the Council:
1. originally planned speed bumps before the junction but did not install them;
2. has not confirmed whether it visited the site to see the junction’s safety issues;
3. has not considered lowering the speed limit to 20 miles per hour further away from the junction.
2. Mr X says most vehicles pass the junction going well over the 20 miles per hour limit, and he finds it extremely difficult and dangerous to use the junction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns about the traffic calming scheme, the Council explained it had been designed to comply with relevant design standards and involved an independent road safety audit. Highways officers considered the site and determined the measures already put in place were the most suitable ones. The Council says officers took account of the rural nature of the location, street lighting and the recorded vehicle speeds. They considered speed humps further away from the junction, extending the 20 miles per hour section of road, would not be appropriate. Officers confirmed they would monitor the completed scheme and if there was evidence of an increase in collisions, they would do another safety audit and consider additional measures. They advised Mr X that there was currently no evidence to trigger a new safety audit.
8. There is not enough evidence of Council fault here to warrant us investigating. Officers put in the traffic calming measures they considered most suitable for the location after their assessment of the location, using their professional judgement. We note Mr X questions whether officers visited the site, but such assessments and monitoring cannot be achieved without highways officer visits. The decision on how to implement the scheme was one officers were entitled to take. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on how it executed the traffic calming scheme. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Even if there were fault by the Council in the ways Mr X states, we would not investigate. We understand Mr X has not been involved in any collisions at the junction but finds it difficult to use. Should he decide not to or feel unable to use an alternative route, he is aware he must use additional caution when driving through the junction. His needing to take greater care there is not a sufficiently significant injustice to him to justify us investigating. We recognise Mr X expected the traffic calming scheme would include more speed bumps before the junction, based on the original plans. But neither this disappointment to him stemming from the removal of those features, nor the sum of the impacts of the matter on him, is enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman