Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to redesign a speed table on the road outside his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. If Mr X believes the Council is responsible for damage to his property it would be reasonable for him to make a claim through the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he is experiencing vibration to his property as a result of large vehicles driving over a speed table outside his property.

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 any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council installed the speed table more than 10 years ago and several years before Mr X bought his property. Any complaint about its installation is therefore significantly outside our time limit for investigation and the decision to install it did not affect Mr X at the time.
7. Mr X has more recently asked the Council to assess the vibrations and redesign the speed table as he says it affects his sleep and has damaged his property, but the Council refused.
8. We will not investigate this issue because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions have caused him significant injustice.
9. Mr X accepts there are no issues when cars drive over the speed table at the speed limit; the issues only arise when large vehicles hit the ramp at a higher speed. This does not show the design of the speed table is flawed and does not mean the Council is responsible for the vibrations or damage to Mr X’s property.
10. No traffic calming measures can be 100% successful in reducing the speed motorists drive along a road. The Council reduced the speed limit and installed the speed table but the motorists themselves are responsible for the speed they travel along the road.
11. If Mr X is concerned motorists are driving too fast he may wish to report the matter to the police as they are the only ones with the power to take action for speeding. If he believes the Council is responsible for damage to his property he may wish to seek legal advice about making a claim through the courts as we cannot hold it responsible for the impact of motorists speeding along his road.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions have caused Mr X significant injustice. Any complaint about the Council’s installation of the speed hump is late and if Mr X believes the Council is responsible for the damage to his property it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman