Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to traffic management on her street. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains:
1. The Council failed to properly address highway safety, road deterioration and pedestrian accessibility on the street where she lives. She says heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), high traffic volumes and speeding traffic cause significant noise, vibration and pollution, which affect her health and well-being as well as the heritage of the village.
2. The lack of continuous pavements makes walking unsafe, particularly with a disability.
3. The Council relied on a speed survey carried out in 2022 and failed to consider more recent evidence. She says this included a 2025 Police Traffic Evaluation Report, planning-related traffic data and visual evidence she provided.
4. The Council failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 because it did not allow enough time for her to send evidence. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise, reopen her case and carry out a fresh assessment taking account of the updated evidence.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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)
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council considered Mrs X's concerns and explained why it did not consider further intervention justified. The Council said traffic speed and volume surveys remain valid for up to three years unless there have been significant changes to the road network or surrounding area. It said the 2022 survey showed speeds within the relevant intervention thresholds. The Council also explained that responsibility for enforcing speed and weight restrictions rests with the police rather than the highway authority. While the Police Traffic Evaluation Report considered traffic speeds and enforcement, it did not require the Council to introduce traffic calming measures or alter the road layout. The Council also considered its collision data, which showed one recorded personal injury collision in the previous five years that was not linked to the road's design. It also explained that traffic assessments filed as part of planning applications are considered through the planning process and do not automatically require changes to the highway network.
8. Mrs X also expressed concerns about the impact of traffic on the village's heritage and the local environment. However, the evidence shows the Council considered the concerns she raised and assessed the need for highway interventions against its relevant criteria, including traffic data, safety considerations and collision records. There is not enough evidence to suggest the Council ignored these concerns or failed to take relevant factors into account.
9. The Council considered the visual evidence Mrs X provided. It recognised signs of surface wear and cracking but decided the defects did not meet its threshold for repair. The Council further recognised the footways on the route are narrow or intermittent in places. However, it said providing new or widened footways would require significant capital investment and would need to be supported by evidence showing a clear safety need. The Council referred the concerns to its Integrated Transport and Accessibility Team for consideration as part of future transport planning.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The evidence available shows the Council considered the relevant information Mrs X provided, assessed the relevant highway and traffic data, and explained the reasons for its conclusions. It also agreed to request a new survey during the 2026/27 financial year. While Mrs X disagrees with the Council's conclusions, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify an investigation.
11. Mrs X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments by not giving her enough time to send evidence. We cannot determine whether a council has breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can consider whether it properly took account of its duties. Even if there was some fault in the time allowed for sending evidence, this did not cause a significant injustice to Mrs X. The Council's position was based on its survey data, maintenance criteria, collision records and the limits of its powers in relation to traffic enforcement. There is not enough evidence to show that receiving further information at an earlier stage would have been likely to change the outcome. Therefore, any injustice arising from this issue is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman