this complaint about the Council’s refusal to alter a road junction. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to change a road junction layout which she believes is dangerous because of its limited view to drivers. She says the Council ignored a petition which she delivered signed by many local residents.
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 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
Ms X says a road junction in her area is dangerous due to a projecting nib of land which limits the view of traffic using it. She asked the Council to consider revising it. The Council told her that it had no plans to change the junction. She submitted a petition signed by many residents asking the Council to change the layout.
The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for making any changes to highway layout or speed and sign restrictions to the highway network. It considered the residents’ request but said that Police accident statistics over the past decade showed that no injury accidents had taken place. The Council said it prioritises traffic management works where there is an identified need for improvement. It also was concerned that the widening of the junction would have an impact on the rural setting of the location.
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 Council’s officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
In this case the Council gave consideration to the request but did not consider that it merited work at present.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to alter a road junction. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman