Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his concerns about the safety of a route used by children to access their school transport. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to appropriately investigate his complaint about the safety of a route used by children to access school transport. He says the route has no footpath and is unlit, causing safety risks. He wants the Council to reassess the route and take suitable action to mitigate the safety risks.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 complaint responses, the Council said it did not have funds for new street lighting, but he could consider asking the Parish Council to fund this. It set out the actions taken in response to his concerns. It said it had completed a site visit to assess the location, pedestrian connectivity and alternative walking routes. It said it noted there was an alternative walking route for pedestrians so a new pathway would not be considered essential at the location. However, it acknowledged a footpath would be beneficial. It said in response to his concerns, it had:
• Liaised with school transport colleagues and the route operator to explore whether there is a feasible, safer transport route or safer pick-up location.
• Identified the section of the road most likely to benefit from a pedestrian footpath.
• Requested indicative costings for a footway to help inform future decision making should funds become available.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X says the stage 2 response failed to address the lack of street lighting, but the Council had already responded to this point in the stage 1 response. Although I accept Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decisions and wants it to do more, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately considered his concerns. We could not require it to undertake further assessments or implement street lighting or other safety measures as Mr X wants. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman