Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide additional road safety measures outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing his request for safety barriers between his home and the highway which he says is a safety hazard.

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
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has refused to provide additional road safety barriers between his home and the highway following two incidents of damage to cars and property in recent years.
6. The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for deciding what traffic regulations and street furniture should be applied to particular situations. The Council undertook a study of traffic speed data for the area and also collision records from the police. This is the normal methodology for considering if a speed limit should be changed or traffic calming introduced.
7. The Council says the average speed of traffic in the area is below the 40mph limit and there have been no injury accidents within the past 15 years. Usually only injury accidents warrant safety consideration. It says only one for the incidents described by Mr X was reported to the police and this was recorded as due to driver error.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. It is for the Council to use its discretion to decide what measures should be taken to increase highway safety.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide additional road safety measures outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman