Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not properly authorising and signing a one-way street in its area. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter to justify us investigating. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. has failed to properly mark and sign a no-entry street for several years;
2. failed to act after he reported the matter;
3. has been operating a one-way system without a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), not following its duties under the Highways Act 1980 and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
2. Mr X says he comes out of the one-way street daily and has repeatedly faced oncoming vehicles turning into it illegally, almost causing collisions. He says this has caused him stress, anxiety and fear for his safety and that of other road users and pedestrians. Mr X says the Council’s lack of transparency and delay has undermined his confidence in its ability to manage highway safety.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has made or planned changes to the signage, road markings and traffic lights at the junction. It has installed ‘ahead only green arrows on the adjoining road, showing drivers that turning left into the one-way street is not permitted. Officers said further signs to make the situation clear to road users were planned. The Council also stated it intended to proceed with a TRO to regularise the one-way street.
6. Even if there has been fault by the Council here, including delay in implementing the changes to the junction and regularising the one-way street, we will not investigate. If the impact of the street on Mr X were causing him stress, anxiety and fear, he might have chosen a different route to avoid exposing himself to this. But even if Mr X could not use a different route, there is insufficient injustice to him from the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. Mr X does not report being involved in any collisions on the street. He was aware he might encounter a driver using the road incorrectly so knew to approach it carefully. That Mr X had to use the street with extra caution is not a sufficiently significant injustice to him to justify us investigating. It is unfortunate the situation has undermined Mr X’s confidence in the Council’s highways management. But neither this impact on its own, nor the sum of the claimed impacts on him, is a sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X warranting an investigation by us.
7. We also note the actions the Council has taken or intends to take to resolve the issues Mr X raised. Were we to investigate, we would have recommend the Council review the situation and take actions after that review to determine what legal and practical works are required at the junction. That the Council has reviewed the situation and is acting to resolve the highway issues means an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome, so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to him to justify us investigating; and
• an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman