The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove speed humps from outside Mr X’s home due to the noise and vibration which he says he is suffering. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council refusing to change traffic calming measures near his home which he says are causing traffic noise and vibration to affect his sleep and daytime working.
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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says speed humps created as part of traffic calming measures on the road where he lives have caused disturbance to his sleep and daytime working due to traffic noise and vibration. He complained to the Council and told it that his home was suffering from cracking as well as noise nuisance. He asked the Council to consider removing the humps near his home and replacing them with a speed camera.
The Council refused to change the traffic calming measures and advised Mr X that there are no statutory vibration levels for traffic and that in an urban environment traffic noise and vibration are inevitable. It also told him that there should be no cracking due to vibration due to the distance involved from the traffic calming features to his property foundations. If he sought a professional opinion which suggested otherwise he could make a claim against the Council under its public liability insurance.
The Council is the highway authority and it has statutory powers to introduce traffic calming and other measures within the highway boundary. There is no action which the Council can take against noise and vibration from traffic because this is exempt from investigation under the provisions of the Environmental Protection act 1990.
The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove speed humps from outside Mr X’s home due to the noise and vibration which he says he is suffering. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman