Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing a road crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council closed a footway crossing over a busy road against the wishes of residents.

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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2025 the Council consulted on plans to close an uncontrolled crossing over a busy road as part of wider proposals to improve road safety. The Council said the crossing was unsafe for pedestrians because of the high vehicle speeds and poor forward visibility. The proposals included four new controlled pedestrian crossings to help the highest numbers of pedestrians to cross the road.
7. The Council considered the outcomes from the statutory consultation, including the objections, as part of its decision-making process and determined that the road safety risks and considerations outweighed the objections raised.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the closure of the crossing.
9. The Council explained that this was a high-risk uncontrolled crossing point. The Council noted it had considered providing a new crossing at this location, but this was not a viable option due to the costs involved and the environmental impact. An alternative signal-controlled crossing is available for Mr X and other residents to use which is within reasonable walking distance.
10. I have reviewed the Council’s documentation and decision-making process. The Council reviewed all the feedback in addition to costs, risks and benefits of the proposals. I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision-making process therefore I cannot question its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council closing a road crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman