Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council reducing the height of speed humps in a residential road. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council reducing the height of speed humps in his road prior to 2020. He says the humps are no longer effective in reducing the speed of traffic and cause noise nuisance because of the speeds of traffic passing over them. He wants the |Council to raise the height of the humps to make them effective for safety reasons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says road humps were placed on the surface of the road where he lives more than 20 years ago. Prior to 2020 they were reduced in height and he says they have failed to provide a speed deterrent to traffic since then. In 2020 the local parish council recorded complaints about the humps being too low but no improvement has been made in recent resurfacing works.
7. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wish to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking. Mr X has been aware of the problems he is complaining about since the humps were reduced more than 12 months ago. I have seen no evidence to suggest he could not have complained to us sooner.
8. The provisions of the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 allows highway authorities to provide traffic calming humps of a height no more than 100mm and no less than 25mm. It is for the individual authority to decide what infrastructure is best suited to the locations in its area and it does not require planning approval or public consultation to manage the highway structures.
9. Mr X also complained about the Council’s failure to respond to a freedom of Information request which he submitted within the required timescale. It is reasonable for him to raise a complaint with the office of the Information Commissioner about this as it is the body responsible for complaints about information access.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council reducing the height of speed humps in a residential road. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman