Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about vehicles speeding or the condition of the road outside Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that vehicles exceed the speed limit on the road where he lives and the road surface is in poor condition. He says it causes vibrations to his home and Mr X feels unsafe walking with his pet. He wants the Council to repair the road and install speed monitoring equipment.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about traffic speeding and the condition of the road where he lives. However, it decided not to implement any further traffic calming measures.
7. Councils as highway authorities have powers to change traffic management and speed restrictions. This is a power not a duty. The Council said historically, the road was restricted to 40mph. It reduced it to 30mph. The Council said that the 30mph speed limit remains appropriate for the road. This is a judgement the Council is entitled to make.
8. The Council said the enforcement of speeding violations is a matter for the police. It confirmed the police would continue to monitor speeds in the area when the threshold is met. We are unlikely to find fault with its approach.
9. The Council considered the relevant guidance, information from site visits, speed surveys, enforcement data, and collision records and information from Mr X when it decided not to implement further measures. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made its decision and I cannot therefore criticise the outcome.
10. The Council said there was no evidence to suggest vibrations from the road caused structural damage to nearby properties. It explained to Mr X he could contact his home insurance company to investigate if he believes the vibrations cause damage to his property. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything more to the Council’s response.
11. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council visited the site, looked at the collision history and traffic data and explained why it did not consider the location an immediate priority. It is for the Council to decide how it prioritises its resources and which locations meet the criteria for road safety intervention There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman