Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about increased noise after repairs to a traffic calming feature outside of her home. It accepts communication with her was not always clear. It also failed to keep and provide records of site monitoring visits. It failed to explain why it was not practical to repair the dip on the feature which it accepts might be contributing to the increased noise. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council’s road works near to her home have increased noise from traffic passing over a traffic calming area; as a result, her amenities are affected as her sleep is disturbed nightly by the noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information provided by Miss Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversations, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss Y has lived in her home for more than 5 years and never had a problem with noise from the traffic calming feature (the road feature) outside her home until contractors, working on behalf of the Council, carried out road repairs in December 2020.
6. Since then, she says her quality of life is affected by noise. The noise is created by traffic going over the road feature. Cars and lorries passing over it create a noise which is disturbing her sleep every evening and affecting her mental health.
7. In its response to her complaint, the Council explained:

• the road feature area outside her home is block paved and has been in place since 1998;
• since installation, the feature’s profile had reduced due to the passing of vehicles;
• minor road repairs were done adjacent to it before a road surface dressing programme was carried out for the rest of the road. The minor repairs restored the feature to its original profile. It did not increase it;
• the minor repairs, therefore, merely returned the condition of the road feature to what it was originally;
• responses from officers to her lacked appropriate detail and context. They failed to refer to this type of treatment and timing. This is because certain works can only be done during warmer months; and
• the surface dressing programme for the road would start in early 2021.

8. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the road repairs included ‘patching’ (repairing defined damaged areas) before the surface dressing programme contractor works were done. The patching involved removing 40mm of the top layer of tarmac and replacing it with new tarmac so surface dressing material could go over the top of it. The repairs done in December 2020 included repairs immediately next to the road feature.
9. It explained surface dressing is used to seal the carriageway from water penetration and improve the texture of the surface. This work was done in May 2021 as part of its surface dressing programme for 2021/22.
10. The Council accepts it has not measured the difference in levels between the tarmac and the road feature but, the height difference is minimal. It says officers visited and monitored the site with no noise problem noted. It failed to provide copies of the actual notes made of the visit or of any monitoring carried out.
11. It also explained the depression (dip) on the top of the road feature does not come within immediate intervention levels for repairs. The Council failed to explain why or exactly how this was assessed.
12. It explained the dip would come within the budget for general highway maintenance duties but, these works and programmes are decided 12 months in advance. This means it will need to assess and prioritise it as part of the following year’s highway maintenance budget. It could offer no guarantees it would get included in the budget.
13. We asked for copies of any inspections or monitoring/assessments carried out following Miss Y’s reports. The Council did not provide them as some were unavailable. It provided copies of photographs taken of parts of the road requiring repairs before and after they were done.
14. While not providing a copy of the original document, it quoted what an inspection observed in June 2021 in its response. This stated in the engineer’s opinion, there was nothing wrong with the road feature in terms of repairs and priorities. It goes on to state, ‘There are areas of block paving adjacent to the centre kerbs which have slightly subsided where it may potentially increase noise levels with the kerbs’.
15. An inspection the following month noted the cost of the repair and the Council not having the blocks needed to do it. To carry out the repair was considered ‘impracticable’ but accepted repairs may reduce some of the noise but would not eliminate it.
16. The Council accepted the dip in the road feature was, ‘considered as a potentially contributory factor to the source of noise. To repair it requires specialist resources but does not fall within immediate levels for repair.’

Analysis

17. I found fault on this complaint and in reaching this conclusion, took the following into account:
1. The Council accepts officers failed to communicate clearly with Miss Y which meant they did not provide her with correct details or context about the various road repairs and works. This is fault.
2. It provided no records of monitoring in support of the claim it carried it out. Nor did it explain the period over which it did monitoring, who did it, or what it involved. This is fault.
3. It provided no evidence showing how it reached its conclusion about the repairs not causing a noise. There is no record about who reached this conclusion, when, how, or what it was measured against. This is fault.
4. The evidence shows the Council recognises the dip in the road feature may be contributing to increased noise.
5. An inspection in June 2021 noted the cost of the repair, the fact the Council did not have the stone blocks needed, and concluded it was impractical to do it. It did not explain why it was impractical. It also went on to accept it may reduce, but not eliminate, noise. The conclusion that could be drawn from this inspection is the reason for not repairing the dip, which may or may not reduce the noise created, was one of finances and resources.
6. Under the Council’s complaints procedure, the initial response to a complaint (stage 1) is sent within 20 working days of receiving it. On 26 February 2021, Miss Y complained to the Council. It sent its stage 1 response on 29 March. It told her she could go to stage 2 if she was unhappy with it. I found no fault on the way the Council dealt with this complaint as it only just missed the target.
7. Where a person remains unhappy with the response, the complaint can go to stage 2. Under this stage, after a formal investigation, a response is sent within 65 working days. On 3 June, Miss Y asked for her complaint to go to stage 2. The Council replied saying it was premature to escalate her complaint. This was because she was unhappy at not receiving a response to her reports about maintenance works. The officer would ask the department to address the matter and respond to her. She could escalate her complaint after the department’s response.
8. The Council confirmed it escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 July. It was unable to show why it went to stage 2. I have seen a screen shot of correspondence from the Council to her on 30 July saying it had allocated an officer to investigate and would send a full response within 20 working days. On 10 August, the Council sent her its stage 2 response. I found no fault on this complaint as it responded within the time frame.

Back to top

Agreed action

18. I considered our guidance on remedies.
19. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss Y a written apology for its failure to: communicate information clearly with her; keep records of site monitoring; explain the reasons for concluding the repairs were not causing the noise problem; explain why repairing the dip in the road feature was impracticable;
2. Remind officers of the need to communicate clear and relevant information with those reporting highway repairs/problems and clearly explain reasons for decisions;
3. Act to ensure proper records of noise assessments are made with details showing how this was done and assessed; and
4. Arrange a further inspection of the road feature to; monitor and assess the noise levels created; compare the results with noise from similar local road features; consider if the results show any evidence of the dip causing more noise than those without; consider further what action it can take to remedy any excess noise found.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I found fault on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman