The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has refused to increase safety measures on a road junction. This is because Mrs X’s complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice. The incidents which caused the injustice Mrs X claims are more appropriately matters for the police.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has failed to put in place further road safety measures at the junction on which she lives. She says her boundary wall was damaged when a motorist hit it and drove off and she sees no point in rebuilding it until the Council has done more to stop other motorists from damaging it. She believes the Council should put in place bollards and traffic lights, create an additional section of pavement and introduce a one-way system.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
As local highway authority the Council has the power to put in place traffic calming measures but there is no statutory duty for it to do so. The Council has already implemented certain measures at the junction and is satisfied these are sufficient. The Council’s decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to question it.
The Council notified Mrs X of its decision not to implement further measures, via her MP, in October 2022 but Mrs X did not complain to us about it until February 2024; her complaint is therefore late and I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing the matter to us. It is clear Mrs X’s further contact with the Council, and ultimately her complaint to us, was prompted by the damage she suffered to her property in late 2023 but this was the result of motorists not obeying the rules which is a matter for the police rather than the Council; we cannot hold the Council responsible for motorists breaching the rules, driving too fast and not obeying the road safety measures which are already in place.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice Mrs X claims stems from the actions of third parties rather than the Council. If Mrs X is concerned motorists are not obeying the rules and restrictions she should raise the matter with the police.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman