Summary: Mr X said the Council did not properly consider his complaint about heavy goods vehicles that pass his house which is a health and safety issue. The Council is at fault for failing to reassess the situation and delay in corresponding with Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider his complaint about the volume of heavy goods vehicles that pass his house daily. Mr X said this is a health and safety issue for himself and others. He would like the Council to impose a weight restriction on the road.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. As part of the investigation, I have considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X.
5. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Feedback leaflet, dealing with compliments, comments and complaint procedure

7. The Feedback leaflet says the Council will acknowledge comments within three working days and pass it on to the relevant service to consider. The service aims to respond within 20 working days.
8. The Feedback leaflet says the Council will acknowledge a complaint within three working days and a full response within 20 working days. If it is not possible to provide a full response within 20 working days, it will contact the complainant and tell them when they can expect a full response.

What happened

9. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
10. Mr X lives on a narrow county road. There are not many passing places should two vehicles be travelling in opposite directions.
11. At the beginning of August 2023, Mr X wrote to the Council. He said roughly 50 – 60 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) pass his property each day on their way to the local quarry. He said the road is not built for vehicles this size and the road is becoming ‘rutted’ in places. Mr X expressed concern about safety as only virtual pavements exist along part of the road. He said he worries an HGV will seriously injure someone on this road. Mr X referred to other roads locally where the Council has introduced ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’ because of safety and pollution. He said the Council should do the same for his area.
12. The Council sent an acknowledgement email to Mr X.
13. Mr X did not receive a substantive response from the Council. He emailed again at the end of August, the beginning of October, late October and early November.
14. Mr X complained to the Council in November.
15. In early January 2024, the Council responded to Mr X. It apologised for the lack of response to his earlier emails. It explained the original planning consent for the quarry is from the 1950s. There were further consents in the 1970s but these did not address access to the site. It explained the current consent is the 2018 Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP). This was a review of existing access rights. The ROMP and accompanying documents refer to voluntary agreements about routes to the quarries via location A. The agreement said “There are no signed routes between the “A road” to the “quarry area”. A route via location B and location C is available, although not recommended due to its poor horizontal and vertical alignment and restricted width.” It is this route that concerns Mr X. The Council explained some other routes are prohibited by traffic orders due to the unsuitability of routes, this is to protect residential areas, villages, and weak bridges. There are no traffic orders on the route which concerns Mr X.
16. The Council explained no formal agreement exists for the route Mr X complains about. There have been voluntary agreements with the quarries which worked well when the quarry did its own haulage work but are less effective now the work is subcontracted. The Council said it has raised the issue with the quarry manager at meetings but as no formal agreement, there is little more it can do.
17. Mr X emailed the Council at the end of April and said he was not satisfied with the Councils response. At the beginning of May, the Council said it had completed its consideration of his complaint and referred him to the Ombudsman.
18. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman at the end of May. He said the Council had failed to address the health and safety issues he raised in his complaint.
19. In conversation with me, Mr X said he is very concerned about HGVs using the road. He said it is dangerous for pedestrians, especially children walking to the school bus stop and parents walking with prams, dog walkers and horse riders. He explained it is ‘bedlam’ if there are HGVs coming both directions. There is no space for them to pass which means one must reverse, causing a traffic jam. He said there is a real threat there will be an accident.

My enquiries

20. In response to my enquiries, the Council reiterated wording from the ROMP, said there are no legal restrictions on the road and referred to voluntary agreements with the quarry managers. It said it had meetings with the quarry managers but could not provide records of these meetings. The Council explained again that a lot of the haulage work is now subcontracted which the quarry has no control over. It can only police trips by hauliers that go to and from its weigh bridges.
21. The Council said there have been informal discussions held with the local County Councillor who reported complaints about the issue. It has also been raised regularly at Parish Council meetings. No minutes of these meetings have been provided.
22. I asked the Council if it has considered prohibiting the route by traffic order, as it has done in other places. The Council said it ‘has considered restrictions…but are currently seeking to achieve this by voluntary agreement with the quarry owners.’
23. The Council referred to a review of collision data provided by the police for the five-year period from January 2019 to December 2023 which it says shows no evidence of safety issues related to HGVs on this route.
24. The Council explained the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint was due to staff workload and the need to consult with different teams.

Analysis

25. Mr X wrote to the Council several times between August 2023 and November 2023. He received an acknowledgement but did not receive a full response. Mr X complained to the Council in November and received a response in January 2024. This is a roughly five months to receive a response to his correspondence and two months to his complaint. The Council should have responded to his communication within 20 working days. The Council delayed in responding to both Mr X’s emails and his complaint. This is fault. This has caused Mr X distress and time and trouble chasing for a response.
26. The Council said it has raised concerns with the quarry managers and discussed what it can and cannot do to ensure HGVs use the prescribed routes. The concerns have also been discussed at Council meetings. The Council is aware of the issue and is reviewing the situation. It has considered Mr X’s complaint.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said there are no record or minutes of the meetings with the quarry managers. It did not provide minutes of the council meetings when this was discussed. This is poor record keeping, this is fault.
28. The actions of the Council highlight concern with HGVs using this route. The ROMP does not recommend the route because of restricted width and poor alignment. The quarry has informal agreements with the hauliers to use the prescribed routes, although these are voluntary and cannot be enforced. The fact the matter has been discussed at meetings with councillors and the quarry managers show this is a topic of concern which the Council has tried to address.
29. In the complaint response to Mr X, the Council said there was ‘nothing more it could do’. I do not consider this a satisfactory conclusion and do not consider the Councils actions go far enough. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered restrictions on the road, but it is seeking to achieve the same result with the voluntary agreements. There is no evidence from the Council it has monitored the voluntary agreement to test if it is managing the situation or carry out any risk assessment. Whilst it is clear the Council is aware of Mr X’s concerns; it has done little to think about them in any detail, consider evidence, reassess the situation or consider if it needs to take further action. Its failure to do so is fault. This has caused Mr X avoidable frustration; this is his injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 for the distress caused by the Council’s delay in responding to his correspondence and complaint, and his time and trouble chasing for a response.
• Remind officers about the importance of good record keeping.
31. Within three months of the final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Monitor and record the effectiveness of the informal agreement over a period of four weeks to understand the situation.
32. Within six months of the final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Use the information collected to consider if the HGVs using this route impacts on other road users, including pedestrians, bikers, and horse riders. The Council should record this in writing.
• Seek advice from highways, legal and planning departments and consider if and what action is required. The Council should record the decision and reasons in writing.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault for failing to reassess the situation and delay corresponding with Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman