The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road markings and traffic management on Mr X’s road. This is because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says for safety reasons the Council should extend the double yellow lines in a particular area on his road. He says it will not cost much for the Council to do the work and it will make safe the currently unsafe road markings.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Under the Local Highway Initiative (LHI) groups and organisations representing the local community are able to submit proposals for funding.
A local organisation in Mr X’s area applied under the scheme for works which covered installing parking restrictions in his road.
Concerned that the road markings introduced as a result of the works have caused a safety issue, particularly for children, Mr X complained to the Council and asked that it carry out further work to extend the double yellow lines in the area.
The Council responded to explain that the works carried out by the Council were those requested by the local organisation under the LHI scheme. It accepted that there may be ways the location could be made safer but said the installed scheme was not inherently unsafe and met legal requirements and those of the applicant organisation. It discussed matters with the organisation and the supporting Local Member, but it was agreed the scheme will remain as it is.
Mr X clearly disagrees with the works carried out under the application and wants additional works to be done. However, the Council has assessed matters and is satisfied with what exists. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions councils make if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
Mr X says there are a large number of local residents who agree with his position and if this is the case then it is open to them to submit their own application for a further LHI.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman