The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of speed limit repeater signs on a road in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council removing speed limit repeater signs on a road where he received a speeding penalty because he understood the limit to be higher than it was.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(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
Mr X received a speeding penalty for driving above the 40 mph speed limit in an area which he believed was a 60 mph zone. In his defence he told the Police that he saw no repeater signs for the speed limit and the road had the appearance of a 60mph zone. He later sent pictures of posts which had previously held 40mph repeater signs but the signs had been removed.
He complained to the Council about the lack of signage which he says breaches the requirements for speed limit signs. The Council says it has no obligation to provide repeater signs under the current regulations. It has recently replaced the removed signs but told us that it could equally have removed the poles as they are not a requirement.
Since 2016 the regulations on traffic signage have given local authorities discretion about whether and where they place speed limit repeater and terminal signs. This means there was no requirement to replace the signs which were removed when the road was widened in the past.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of speed limit repeater signs on a road in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman