Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install new traffic safety measures outside a school. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. In any event, Mr X has not experienced a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess and respond to a foreseeable and ongoing road safety risk outside a school. He said it relied on irrelevant factors in coming to its decision.
2. Mr X said he is regularly required to stop in the live carriageway and double-park, exposing him and children to risk.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to carry out a proper road safety assessment and install mitigation measures such as “school keep clear” zig zag markings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• 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 provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X transports children to a school. He complained to the Council and explained cars regularly double-parked outside the school due to the volume of traffic at school drop-off and pick-up times. He asked the Council to install measures to mitigate the risk.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns. It explained there was insufficient data in the way of reports to evidence there was a significant issue. It also explained the school was not in agreement with measures being installed. It confirmed it would not install new measures.
9. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision and complained to us.
10. We are not an appeal body. We consider whether there is evidence of fault in how councils come to decisions. Where a council has properly made its decision, we have no power to change the outcome. In this case, the Council considered the relevant matters but decided it would not install new measures. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it came to that decision.
11. We will also not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
12. Mr X has not experienced a significant personal injustice that would justify investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and Mr X has not experienced a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman