The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to reinstall a speed hump in his road. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to reinstate a speed hump it removed from his road in 2007, despite telling residents it would do so in 2019. He says speeding cars are a danger to him and he wants the hump reinstalled.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether a council’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) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In 2007 the Council removed a speed hump located in the road close to Mr X’s property. In 2019 it told residents it intended to reinstate the hump but as residents and ward members approached it about traffic issues on the road, the Council decided to carry out a full consultation with residents for their views on a range of options to deal with the traffic. The consultation took place but as there was no clear decision from residents, the Council decided it would make the decision on the way forward.
In response to Mr X’s complaint about this matter, the Council set out clearly the chronology of events, addressed Mr X’s queries and explained the installation of the speed hump may not be required, depending on the decision taken on the traffic design for the road.
The Council has confirmed it continues to look at the way forward for the most manageable scheme and anticipates obtaining funding in the next financial year.
While I understand Mr X will be disappointed the speed hump is unlikely to be reinstalled, the decision on whether to do so, and what traffic scheme to introduce, will be the Council’s. We are not an appeal body, and we cannot question the merits of decisions properly made by councils.
Mr X has referred to past events dating back to 2007 but the restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to them. As Mr X could have made his complaint about them earlier, I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate them now.
If Mr X is unhappy with information provided to him by the Council under the FOI legislation, he can go to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the body best placed to deal with such matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman