Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s points about allegedly unlawful speed limit signage. The underlying points about the legality of the signs and whether Mr X was at fault are for the courts. It would therefore be a disproportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s dealings with Mr X on the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X argues some Council road signs do not meet the legal requirements for showing the speed limit. He complains the Council did not deal properly with his communications about this, did not properly investigate the matter and did not explain its claim that the signs complied with the law.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of, the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any 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 or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I understand Mr X has been accused of speeding. Mr X disputes he was at fault because he says the Council did not display the legally required signage showing the speed limit. He says the Council has not given him a proper explanation and is wrongly saying its signs are legal.
7. Someone can only be penalised for speeding if they admit fault or if the matter goes to court and the court finds the person at fault. If it goes to court, the person can put their case, including any argument that a change in the speed limit was not properly signed so they did not know the limit had changed.
8. Mr X’s complaint to us said, “I intend to fight the offence.” It also said court proceedings were “imminent.” So the question of whether Mr X broke the law could be decided in court.
9. The main point underlying Mr X’s complaint to us is his argument that the speed limit was not legally signed therefore he was not at fault. It is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to interpret the law and to decide those questions of lawfulness. If court action has already taken place, we cannot consider matters that were, or could reasonably have been, raised in court. If no court action has yet happened, it is reasonable for Mr X to await court action and put his case in court. That is how to resolve the central point about whether the signage was lawful. Either way, it is not for us to decide this point.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about a Council’s communications and complaint-handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Here, we will not investigate the main point about the signage, as explained above. It would therefore be a disproportionate use of our time and public money to investigate why the Council said what it did in response to Mr X and how it handled Mr X’s enquiry and complaint.
11. We cannot achieve some of the results Mr X wants from this complaint, including dismissal of Council staff and having the Council admit the signage is not legal.
12. I note some of Mr X’s correspondence with the Council alleged criminal offences by Council staff. That is for the police and courts. We cannot comment on that.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The underlying points about the legality of the signs and whether Mr X was at fault are for the courts. It would therefore be a disproportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s dealings with Mr X on the matter. We cannot have staff dismissed or make the Council accept the signage is not legal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman