The barrier complaint – an update
Just a quick thing...
I have chosen not to use adverts, pop-ups, mailing lists, or mandatory subscriptions, but it means there is an ongoing cost for me in researching and writing content, and generally advocating for active travel - time spent not working! If you can throw a few pounds my way to help out, your support is gratefully received! Thank you!
Update 10 Dec 2024: A response to the Subject Access Request has arrived, but on laying out that information in a private timeline, there appear to be gaps. I’ve requested that the response be double-checked to ensure everything recorded and applicable is included.
Update 06 Dec 2024: The new complaint is being considered by senior management as a complex case and therefore a response will take longer than ten working days.
The full history of this issue is documented in the case timeline.
Original article
Earlier this year I entered into a protracted complaint with the County Council about the sudden installation of a chicane barrier on a short piece of path that is vital for accessing a formal shared use route. Counting from the date of installation, the matter has been going on for almost seven months, so here’s a quick update.
Without going too much into the details over the complaint history, which is covered in two existing articles and a timeline page, keen readers will recall that I submitted a complaint after it became apparent that when installing the new barrier which replaced old bollards, the Council had not considered the Equality Act 2010, its own policies for active travel, nor accessibility for an important walking, wheeling, and cycling route. The barrier was installed as a response to use of the path by (a) motorcycle rider(s), an issue that was unquantified, while the now repealed Disability Discrimination Act was used as the basis of ensuring equality of access. As such, no equality impact assessment (EqIA) was undertaken. There are no reasonable alternative routes to this path that do not involve a significant detour.
Two responses to that complaint had been received – an initial one, and after rejecting that as unsatisfactory, a further one from a line manager. The second response also failed to fully address the issues raised in the complaint. So, that response was also rejected as unsatisfactory and I asked again for the complaint to be properly addressed, ideally this time by a senior officer outside of the County Highways department.
Despite a number of follow-up emails, no further communication had been received from Warwickshire County Council since the line manager’s response on 27 August 2024. It seemed likely that emails were being ignored, but without any final message to state that County Highways would no longer correspond on the matter.
After one last attempt on 28 October to get an update and ideally a resolution, I have embarked on a new complaint. This one targets the handling of the original matter (the slow response, the failure to address key points of the complaint, and the apparent decision to ignore further communications), but also includes the original complaint which still needs a proper reply. This new submission has been acknowledged and a response or update should be forthcoming in around ten working days.
In the new complaint, I had requested that this now be sent to an officer who sits independent of the County Highways department (and ideally the Directorate), in order to provide a more objective view and reduce any potential conflict of interest that may arise by County Highways self-managing the complaint. Sadly, Warwickshire’s complaints policy precludes this possibility with no option of flexibility. It will be interesting then to see if County Highways takes a different approach to handling the matter a second time around.
In hindsight, now being more aware of the County Council’s complaints procedure, I should have requested a Stage 2 Review of the original complaint, but this option was not offered (itself potentially a breach of policy) and can only be requested within 20 days of the complaint response – now long since passed. This time around, I will keep this option in reserve should the Department fail to properly consider and address both aspects of the new complaint.
To be clear, I really don’t want to have to push this matter so extensively. If the County Council had fully and properly replied to the original complaint in the first place (or when the escalation was requested), it could perhaps have been concluded one way or another by now, or at least moved much further along. But the issue is important. While to some a simple chicane barrier might seem rather trivial, its installation has raised more fundamental questions about the processes that the Council uses to determine accessibility, suitability, and the adherence to current legislation and internal policies. So, I will keep pushing this until my options are exhausted, regardless of the time we’re all having to spend on it.
Incidentally, while writing this, WCC Road Safety Education and Active Travel put out a post on their social media noting a tricycle user. It’s difficult to reconcile given how awkward it can be to navigate “non-standard” cycles through some of the county’s restrictions (where routes are even provided), including chicane barriers like this one. The post is just one example of the disconnect between what the Council likes to shout about on public channels versus what it actually does on the ground.
Have you found this content interesting or useful? If so, and if you are able to, any contributions are greatly appreciated! Thank you! Oh, and do please share with others!
@ben Thanks very much for speaking up on this issue. These sorts of barriers affect me as a disabled cyclist who's currently using a quadricycle. They've affected me before when I was able to ride an upright longbike as well.
Thanks Megan. I’m doing what I can, but options are limited as I’m not personally affected by the barrier – a rather daft limitation of the Equality Act 2010 is that only people who affected can legally challenge an obstruction. Still, I hope that by documenting the problem, it is at least recorded that the Council is clearly aware of the issue, should anyone be adversely affected by this or other barriers.
@ben bloody hell, trying to cite the DDA in this day and age!
I know. Crazy!
@bright_helpings @ben
Orgs cite the DDA all the time and use the term "DDA compliant" which is NOT a thing we have in the UK (ADA Compliant in the USA has a meaning cos of the way the ADA has regulations attached to it).
Nice red flag if they still refer to DDA in my view.
Org complaints processes are bullshit tho. I suspect the only thing that will shift em is a court filing which you can only file if personally & I know of a case that failed cos judge said it was too late (bullshittishly)
Yes, it does seem very telling – also very interesting how I was told (in the second response) that it was important to make sure “correct legislation is followed”, despite the fact they refer to a long-repealed act. Unfortunately there’s nothing I can do from a legal point of view given limitations of the Equality Act, but I’ll follow through with this second complaint and, if necessary a Stage 2 Review to ensure that the Department has both followed policy and answered all points of the complaints. Other than that, perhaps this journal of events can be useful to anyone who *is* adversely impacted and wants to take legal action. The Council cannot say they didn’t know!