Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a road for speed restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider his request for speed restrictions on the road outside his home which he says frequently suffers from speeding and has safety implications when exiting from his drive.

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 not considered all the relevant factors when it carried out a survey of road speed safety on the road at his request. He says the Council’s own records indicate a large amount of speeding vehicles combined with limited sightlines for vehicle exits.
6. The Council says it accepts the current situation of sightlines would not meet modern standards but this is a historical situation and many UK roads do not meet the standards of new layouts required. Councils as highway authorities should consider requests from parish councils and other bodies to introduce speed restrictions through villages and other locations where there is a volume of traffic through a built-up area.
7. The Council told Mr X that a 20mph speed limit on sections of the road where there are drive exits would not be practical and would require public consultation for traffic calming measures required by the restrictions. Such measures would have to be introduced by a traffic management order under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
8. There is no duty for a highway authority to introduce local speed limits and it must decide how best to prioritise its budget for the highway system in its area as a whole. The Council considered Mr X’s request and explained why it will not be pursuing a speed limit. It may relocate vehicle operated warning signs but this does not require a traffic order.
9. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a road for speed restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman