Summary: Mr and Mrs A complain the Council installed an unsafe pedestrian refuge island near their home. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault by the Council. He has upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council accepts the recommended actions.

The complaint

1. The complainants (whom I refer to as Mr and Mrs A) say the Council installed an unsafe pedestrian refuge island (refuge island) on the highway outside their home. The refuge island meant they found it difficult to access and exit their driveway from 2018 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have spoken to Mr and Mrs A and considered the information they provided.
5. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In March 2017 the Council sent residents, including Mr and Mrs A, a consultation leaflet about changes to the road. It planned to install refuge islands and included a plan for the works which did not include measurements. Mr and Mrs A did not object to the plans. The Council worked through its Quality Assurance process; no safety concerns were flagged. The scheme was approved in November 2017 and the refuge island installed in 2018.
8. In June 2018 Mr and Mrs A called the Council reporting problems with the refuge island which meant they found it difficult to exit and access their driveway. They felt it was dangerous. Traffic was being funnelled closer to their home. They chased up the Council in July and this was passed to a Senior Engineer. He contacted the couple on 19 July and visited the site the next day. He told Mr A he would consider what could be done to resolve the issue. Later that month the Council proposed a new layout for Mr and Mrs A to trial. The couple did so and contacted the Council on 7 September. They were not comfortable with the layout and still wanted the Council to resolve the problems caused by the refuge island. Three days later the Senior Engineer said he would discuss it further with colleagues.
9. Mr and Mrs A chased up the Council on 1 October and the Senior Engineer replied the next day, he was waiting to speak to his Manager. He confirmed later that month, after further contact from Mr and Mrs A, the Council wanted to discuss the option of lowering the property wall to improve visibility. He met Mr and Mrs A on site in November. On 7 December, the couple emailed the Council. The plans in the consultation had no dimensions so they could not tell the island would be one metre nearer to their home. Despite trying a new layout, the problems persisted and they wanted the Council to do something with the island.
10. In January 2019, the Council asked the Senior Engineer to look at realignment options for the refuge island. In February and March, the Council drew up new plans. On 3 March Mr and Mrs A lodged a complaint with the Council. The Council did not respond and they came to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council to contact the couple. At the end of June, the Council did reply and explained what had happened. A month later the Senior Engineer asked to meet Mr and Mrs A to go through the new plans. He was then away from work until mid August. He met the couple soon after his return to work and tested the new plan with them to ensure it would resolve their concerns. He confirmed later that day what had been discussed. The refuge island would be narrowed, and the footpath widened. The Council needed to price the woks and get agreement. Works were dependant on funding being available. In September, the Council agreed the plans and costs and the work was sent to the contractor.
11. On 7 October Mr and Mrs A asked for an update. The Senior Engineer responded the same day. Work would start in the next financial year (from April 2020). In March 2020 covid-19 restrictions came into place. I started my investigation in November and, as a result, the Council chased up the contractors for a start date on 13 November. The Senior Engineer also contacted Mr and Mrs A and confirmed a proposed start date at the end of February 2021.

What should have happened

12. The Council is responsible for the installation of refuge islands on the highway. Such works are subject to its Quality Assurance process. An initial design is sent to relevant officers (including road safety engineers) for comments. The Council then consults residents and takes account of their views. A final scheme for implementation will be checked before the Council formally agrees it. The work is given to a contractor to carry out. Depending on budget restraints works may have to wait for the next financial year.
13. When the Council receives a report about safety issues with a refuge island a senior engineer will consider the case. They will visit the site. If an issue is found requiring changes to the refuge island/ footpath the Council must prepare a new design plan and costings which are submitted for approval. The Council then liaises with the contractor and looks at the impact on traffic flow to decide on the best time for the works.
14. From March 2020 onwards covid-19 restrictions came into place. This meant the Council had reduced staffing. It also had to carry out urgent temporary traffic schemes related to the pandemic. This meant planned works were significantly delayed.

Was there fault by the Council

15. The Council did follow its Quality Assurance process when considering the refuge island design and installation. As it did not receive any comments raising safety issues from Officers or Mr and Mrs A it was correct to proceed with the installation. That said, I do consider the Council could have made the plans in its consultation process clearer for residents. As Mr and Mrs A have previously told the Council, they found it hard to understand the impact of the plan without dimensions and clearer information. Had they been given more information it is likely they would have told the Council about potential issues accessing their driveway. The Council has acknowledged that professionals and non-professionals will read plans differently and it says it is open to improving the information it presents to residents.
16. Overall, the Council did progress the case, albeit at a slower pace than Mr and Mrs A would have liked. The process for designs, approving plans and funding does take a significant amount of time to go through. The Council did also consider different options to try and remedy the problems caused to Mr and Mrs A. That said there was some delay. I cannot see action was taken in April to mid-June 2019. The revised plans were then taken forward by the Council and works agreed to start in the next financial year (2020). Unfortunately, the covid-19 pandemic meant that planned works, such as this, had to be pushed back. That was of course out of the Council’s control. However, the Council should have updated Mr and Mrs A about the delays in 2020. It should also have chased up its contractor sooner to set a revised start date for the works. That only happened at the end of 2020 after contact from the Ombudsman.
17. The Council also delayed responding to Mr and Mrs A’s complaint in 2019. The couple had to contact the Ombudsman for assistance before the Council responded. That is not acceptable.

Did the fault cause an injustice

18. Mr and Mrs A had to chase up the Council and were put to unnecessary time and trouble due to delay and lack of communication.

Agreed action

19. The Council now has a proposed start date for the works and I know Mr and Mrs A are satisfied with this. It has also committed to discussing lessons for this case with the relevant teams. In addition, the Council has agreed with my recommendations and will:
• Pay Mr and Mrs A £250 for time and trouble within four weeks of this case closing;
• Ensure Mr and Mrs A are kept updated about the works and any changes to the timescale.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman