Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a local road scheme as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X alleges the Council has not assessed the traffic impact of a local road scheme or engaged with partner agencies to enforce local speed limits. She also says the Council has failed to fulfil its commitment to install new Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) and has provided inaccurate pollution data for the area.
2. Ms X wants the Council to release the 2024 pollution data and its main roads plan. In addition, she would like the Council to install VAS, carry out further traffic monitoring, and engage with partner agencies to ensure the speed limit is enforced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint response, the Council explained how it had assessed the impact of the scheme. It said it had carried out a traffic survey on boundary roads, was monitoring the volume of traffic and had analysed air quality data. This demonstrates the Council assessed the scheme’s impact on local roads and therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to warrant an investigation.
8. Ms X says the Council has not liaised with partner agencies to enforce the road’s speed limit. In its complaint response, the Council explained that responsibility for enforcing speed limits lies with Transport for London (TfL) and the Police. It has told her it will continue to raise these issues with TfL & the Police. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault.
9. Ms X says the Council has not fulfilled its promise to install new VAS. The Council in its complaint response explained there is no requirement to install new signs because a permanent traffic counter on the road already collects continuous traffic data. This is the Council’s decision to make. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has reached this decision and so we cannot question it.
10. Ms X says the Council has refused to install an automatic pollution monitor on her road and is basing its decision on outdated data. The Council has explained the reasoning for its decision to Ms X. It is for the Council to decide where to install the monitors. In its complaint response it has stated that it has an automatic pollution monitor within the local area and it will explore if additional monitoring is required based on what this data provides. This is the Council’s decision to make. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman