The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not dealt with road safety concerns properly. The Council is at fault because it did not properly consider the issues he raised. Mr X did not suffer any injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not properly dealt with road safety concerns he raised.
Mr X says he and his daughter are exposed to higher risk of injury as a result.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended) Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened?
This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
Mr X raised concerns about road safety through the Council’s online reporting system in January 2023. Mr X received a response from the Council in early March 2023.
Mr X told the Council he was unhappy with the response he received. The Council met with Mr X on site to discuss the issues raised.
Mr X complained to the Council that it had not responded to his concerns and he had not received a satisfactory outcome from the site meeting.
The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said its initial response had been outside the required timeframe and explained why. It also agreed its stage 1 complaint response had not been sufficiently clear. It did not uphold his complaint about the outcome of the road safety concerns Mr X raised.
Analysis Mr X told me he was concerned particularly about one specific location. The Council addressed this location in its stage 2 complaint response.
The Council told Mr X in its stage 1 complaint response, “Surrey County Council receives a vast number of requests for changes to be made on roads throughout the county due to residents’ concerns about road safety. Those roads where there is evidence of personal injury collisions are assessed by Surrey County Council’s Road Safety team with the aim of using the evidence collected by Surrey Police regarding the contributory factors in the cause of the collisions, to developing measures to try to help to reduce such collisions.”
The Council says it, “does not have a formal policy or procedure to follow when considering road safety concerns. When considering road safety concerns that have been raised the Council asses each individual request on its own merits. Each assessment takes account of the following: Whether there is a recorded history of personal injury or collision on the road, including before / after the installation of any virtual footway.
Whether any additional measures may have already been installed.
Knowledge of any other road safety concerns raised within the surrounding area as well as the immediate vicinity.”
The Council’s response to Mr X’s initial concerns did not show it had considered any accident statistics. It did refer to measures that were already installed and general issues in the surrounding area. This is fault by the Council.
I have seen a complaint investigation record which shows the Council considered each of the issues in paragraph 13 when it considered Mr X’s complaint. The Council has considered the appropriate factors. This is not fault by the Council.
Mr X did not suffer any injustice from the Council’s initial response to his concerns because consideration of accident statistics would not have resulted in a different decision.
The Council says it will formalise the approach in paragraph 13 into a standard operating procedure. I consider this is an appropriate remedy.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council which did not cause injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman