The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the implementation of traffic calming and reduced speed limits in his area. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to implement a 20 mile per hour speed limit and traffic calming measures in his area. He says the scheme is unnecessary and causing delays to his journeys. He wants the Council to cancel the scheme.
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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We will not investigate this complaint. Our assessment code states we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. I do not consider this to be the case here.
I accept Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to implement the scheme and that the reduced speed limit and traffic calming measures may lead to increased journey times. However, I do not consider this causes a significant personal injustice. The Council has clearly explained to Mr X and local residents its reasons for deciding to implement the scheme.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman