Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision it would not move the position of bollards at the end of Mr X’s road. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s historical placement of bollards, which he said were at the wrong end of his road. Mr X also complained the Council more recently refused to:
• move the bollards to the other end of the road to restrict Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from using the road; and
• repair or strengthen the road.
2. Mr X said the Council’s decisions had caused deterioration to the unadopted road and risked structural damage to his property. He also said the matter had caused him significant distress, and waste collection trucks could no longer use the road.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to move the bollards or strengthen the road and restore waste collection services. He also wanted the Council to carry out inspections and assessments, and provide explanations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The bollards Mr X’s complaint relates to have been in place for many years, and were placed subsequent to a prohibition of driving order that was made in the 1970s. Mr X has lived in the property in question for at least ten years, and was already raising concerns about the condition of the unadopted road in 2015.
9. Mr X’s complaint about the original placement of the bollards is historical. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain about this earlier, nor could we realistically investigate events that would appear to have occurred several decades ago.
10. I have limited my consideration to the more recent communications between Mr X and the Council, during which he asked it to consider moving the bollards to the opposite end of his road.
11. The Council explained its reasons for not agreeing to move the bollards. These included a lack of turning space for vehicles at the other end of the road and the relative volumes of traffic at each end of the road. The Council explained it was satisfied the current bollard position was the safest and most practical arrangement.
12. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s request. In the absence of fault, it is not for us to question the decision the Council came to. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this alone does not mean the Council is at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman