Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not remove speed bumps along a residential road. This is because the Council made its decision having properly considered relevant factors which are evidence and policy based. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council made its decision and cannot therefore question the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs V) complains about the Council’s decision to not remove road traffic bumps along her residential road. She says that motorists drive too fast over the bumps which causes an unacceptable level of noise. She is unhappy with the Council’s response to the problem. In summary, she says the Council’s inaction is causing excessive and disruptive noise on the road. Mrs V wants the Council to find and implement an alternative road traffic measure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the decision was made, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have read all of the Council’s responses to Mrs V. The road traffic bumps were introduced on the road in 2012 to tackle issues with speeding. The Council inspected the road in response to Mrs V’s complaint and noted the bumps used along the road are the narrow and most appropriate type due to the use of heavy goods vehicles on the road which can straddle the measure. It says the bumps also form part of necessary measures to maintain 20 mile per hour speed restrictions for all residential streets. The Council’s assessment added that using a full width hump would likely lead to increased noise and there is no other alternative measure which could be implemented. It also informed Mrs V that it cannot take action in respect of noise levels because the relevant legislative framework does not apply to road traffic noise.
6. The available evidence shows the Council has assessed the problem and decided the current speeding measure is the most appropriate available. Its decision to not remove the road bumps is based on factors which are relevant and evidence and policy based. There is unlikely to be fault in how the Council made its decision and we cannot therefore question the merits of this.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with how the Council made its decision. We cannot therefore question the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman