Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of concerns about traffic management. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council has not had the opportunity to complain about the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not responded to his concerns about pedestrian safety caused by footpath closures and his request for a permanent reduction in the speed limit.
2. He also complains that the Council’s Highways and Public Rights Of Way (PROW) teams do not communicate effectively about footpath closures and measures to improve pedestrian safety.
3. He says it is unsafe to walk from his home to the local village because traffic has increased following new development and because the road has been used as a diversion route when other roads are closed.
4. He would like the Council to introduce a lower speed limit on the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains the Council did not respond properly to his concerns about pedestrian safety arising from footpath closures.
10. The Council told Mr X it had worked with the developer to ensure the required 30mph signage was in place. The Council also explained the road near the development would remain subject to a 30mph speed limit once the development was complete.
11. It explained why it had decided not to extend the existing 20mph zone. Its explanation was in line with Department for Transport guidance. So there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council considered the PA’s request to extend the 20mph zone.
12. I understand this means there will remain a stretch of road between the development and the existing 20mph zone that is subject to the national speed limit. We will not investigate whether the Council should have reviewed this speed limit when Mr X raised his concerns. This is because if Mr X is unhappy with the speed limit on that section of road, he can make a new request to the highways authority to carry out a speed limit review for that specific stretch of road. I consider it is reasonable for Mr X to do so. I do not consider any injustice caused by Mr X having to use this process is significant enough to justify our investigation.
13. Mr X also complains the Council's Highways and Public Rights of Way (PROW) teams do not communicate effectively about footpath closures and pedestrian safety.
14. I do not consider the Council has had the opportunity to reply to this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. Mr X should complain to the Council in the first instance but can return to the Ombudsman if he is unhappy once he has received its response.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council has not had the opportunity to complain about the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman