Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his request to implement safety measures on a lane. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his request to implement safety measures on a lane. He said this failure posed a danger to himself and other pedestrians, he wanted the Council to:
• conduct a proper safety review of the lane; and
• put measures in place to improve safety.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to introduce safety improvements on the lane as he had concerns for the safety of himself and other pedestrians.
6. The Council considered Mr X’s request and liaised with its Highways Team. It confirmed that it had already investigated and assessed the area following previous requests from Mr X. It had also considered various measures including implementing a one-way system and installing a footway. However, these options were not considered appropriate or feasible.
7. The Council confirmed it had reviewed collision data and site information and found there was insufficient evidence to support the introduction of additional measures. However, it confirmed it would continue to monitor these in accordance with its Highways’ processes.
8. We will not investigate this matter as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s Concerns. It confirmed it will continue to monitor collision data and site information; investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve any further meaningful outcome.
9. In any event, we will 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 Council. This means 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 Council, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a longer period of time.
10. In this instance Mr X raised a potential risk to safety; however, this is a hypothetical injustice. Any injustice Mr X has experienced is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve any further meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman