Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided not to do works to his street to deal with congestion related to a local school. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a school. Due to its setting, the Council classifies the school as ‘Category A’, meaning it is a priority location for its ‘School Streets’ scheme, which aims to reduce congestion around its area’s schools. Mr X complains the Council:
1. did not adequately consider or assess foreseeable safety concerns on his road from persistent parking displacement, carriageway narrowing, and school‑related congestion;
2. did not indicate that officers did a site-specific safety assessment, observation, or evaluation of visibility and obstruction risks;
3. based its decision not to take action on historical personal injury collision data.
2. Mr X says the parking and traffic from people using the school reduce space for residents, narrow the carriageway and obstruct sightlines. He says this worsens congestion and reduces visibility, particularly during the school day’s start and end periods, creating safety concerns for pedestrians and drivers.

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, relevant online maps and images, 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 followed to make the decision. We cannot replace a council’s 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 complaint, the Council explained how it had decided not to do works in his area to reduce school-related congestion under its ‘School Streets’ scheme at this time. Officers explained the school’s ‘Category A’ status did not mean it was automatically given highest priority. They had assessed the location’s safety and risk record, including the number of collisions reported to it and the police within the last five years. Officers determined there are other higher risk sites near schools which it should prioritise for this scheme, where more and riskier incidents had occurred, involving more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. They advised Mr X his street had been earmarked for future work and they would keep it, and all other sites, under review so its priority may change if there is new evidence of safety risks.
8. Councils are entitled to choose where they target and spend their limited resources for such work. As they have many school locations to consider, they must determine how to prioritise their funds so they can reduce the most risk across their entire area. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the priority level the Council has given to his street and the method used. But the Council has explained the reasons for its method and its policy on how it prioritises locations under its ‘School Streets’ scheme. Officers gathered relevant safety information to inform their professional judgement decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has adopted its policy then applied it to Mr X’s street to warrant us investigating. 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 here, we will not investigate. We understand Mr X has worries about what might happen on the street due to the traffic and parking, particularly congestion connected with the school day. But he does not report being involved in any incidents due to this. That worry about what might happen in future is not a sufficiently significant injustice to Mr X. We cannot take account of incidents which have not happened as injustices. Events which may have happened to other people would not be personal injustices to Mr X. We recognise the activity and congestion in the road would cause him annoyance, frustration and inconvenience. But that is not sufficiently significant injustice to Mr X, stemming from the Council’s decision to not take action regarding the circumstances on the street at this time, to warrant an investigation.

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 injustice to Mr X stemming from the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman