this complaint about the Council’s decision not to implement additional highway markings requested by Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her request for markings on the road surface to keep a turning head clear of parked vehicles on the road where she lives.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X says the Council has failed to properly consider her request for markings on a turning head on her road which is no through road and needs to be clear to allow vehicles to turn. She raised the matter with neighbours and the Council in previous years and in 2021 formally asked the Council to provide highway markings to deter parking.
In April 2021 the Council gave her its final decision and advised that there were no highway safety needs in terms of accidents or injuries to warrant the addition of the markings. Ms X had offered to pay £1,000 towards the cost but the Council said it was not prepared to provide and maintain markings which would only be advisory.
Ms X spent the months after this decision seeking to progress her complaint and the Council has decided to limit her contact on a matter which it considers closed.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council considered Ms X’s request but did not believe there was sufficient need to justify the expense of further highway works.
Although Ms X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision this does not mean that there was fault in the process. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. The amount of information provided by Ms X and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to implement additional highway markings requested by Ms X. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman