Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway changes close to Ms X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about highway changes made to a layby and crossing point close to her home. She says she and others have been negatively affected by the alterations introduced as a result of a new housing development and that residents were not consulted about the changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about highway changes close to her home which she said restricted her movements and were causing problems for older and more vulnerable residents and visitors.
7. The Council explained the background to the highway works that had been carried out and said the new crossing point would allow all users to benefit from a safer place to cross. It also explained that the changes introduced by the new scheme were still subject to a Road Safety Audit by an independent auditor and that her concerns would be raised with them. It also said a proposal to reintroduce a dropped kerb which Ms X had requested had been made to the developer.
8. It clarified that it had not been required to undertake consultation with members of the public about the type of highway works carried out but it did request the designers of the scheme consult with the local parish council.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Ms X may have preferred the previous layout, it is for the Council to decide and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decisions.
10. I note there was delay by the Council in responding to the complaint, but we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman