Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install a school pedestrian crossing near Mrs X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to install a pedestrian crossing in the highway near her home. She says noise from the use by pedestrians and vehicle stopping will cause mental health problems for her disabled son. She says the Council did not give sufficient consideration to her concerns under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. She also says the crossing will cause parking and access problems for her own vehicles.

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), section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says the Council’s decision to install a pedestrian crossing for a nearby school cause problems for her disabled son and has parking implications for her car and motorhome due to the extension of double yellow lines. She complained to the Council that it had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her sons’ disabled needs under the Equality Act 2010 provisions.
7. The Council says that the crossing site was selected following full consideration of the highway requirements and that a site further away, which Mrs X prefers for the crossing, is not suitable. There is no right to park on the public highway and although she may do so where there are no restrictions the Council can site infrastructure within the highway without planning approval and there is no formal appeal under the Highways Act 1980.
8. In the Council’s response to Mrs X’s compalint it said that it has considered the implications of both the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 2018. It believes that any additional noise from the public using the crossing is limited and that no breaches of the legislation were identified in its Equality Act statement. The crossing provision includes benefit for vulnerable highway users by offering a safe crossing point and other locations would have less stopping distance afforded by this location.
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.
10. The Council decided to locate the crossing using its statutory powers under the Highways Act legislation. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. I do not find the Council failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act here. If Mrs X wishes to challenge the Council’s actions on equality and human rights legislation only the courts can determine these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install a school pedestrian crossing near Mrs 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