Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a diversion route for construction traffic which Mr X says is unsafe for local residents. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council diverting heavy construction traffic down the road where he lives. He says that the route is unsuitable for heavy lorries and this has led to vehicles being unable to pass, safety concerns and confrontation with drivers.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council diverted construction traffic down the road where he lives causing safety concerns for residents. He believes the Council did not take the risks into account when it approved the route and it should prioritise an alternative site access.
6. The Council told Mr X that the route chosen is the only practical alternative for the construction of an access to the development and that this was done as a temporary traffic management action. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints about obstruction and discourteous driving by site traffic on a route which he says is too narrow. The Council pursued a temporary new access site with the developer but has not been able to progress this so far due to differences in levels at this point.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The development had planning approval and the use of existing roads to access the site during construction was accepted by the highway authority which is responsible for diversions and traffic access. There is no right of appeal under the Highways Act 1980 to a diversionary route as this lies within the powers of the highway authority which in this case is the Council. If there are any traffic accidents during the course of the construction works these would be matters for the police/insurers to deal with as with any other public highway.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a diversion route for construction traffic which Mr X says is unsafe for local residents. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman