Recommendations not implemented: Ombudsman recommends removal of speed bump and installation of speed camera in Mosta

Recommendations not implemented: Ombudsman recommends removal of speed bump and installation of speed camera in Mosta

Published October 20, 2026

The complaint

The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated a complaint concerning traffic calming measures installed along Vjal il-Qalbiena Mostin in Mosta.

The complainant lived close to one of two speed bumps installed in July 2025. He complained that the proximity of the speed bump had resulted in persistent noise and vibration from passing vehicles, particularly heavy vehicles, as well as increased exhaust emissions as vehicles slowed down and accelerated again. He also reported instances of disturbance in the early morning hours and at night. He further maintained that the accompanying road sign affected access to his garage.

The complainant argued that the measure had not effectively addressed speeding. He reported continued reckless driving, unsafe overtaking and increased risk of accidents, and proposed that a speed camera or other enforcement measures would provide a more effective solution. Before approaching the Ombudsman, he had raised the matter with the Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Works and the Mosta Local Council but had received no substantive update.

Facts and findings

The complaint was referred to the Mosta Local Council, the Ministry and Transport Malta for their comments.

The Mosta Local Council maintained that the traffic calming measures had been introduced following an earlier recommendation by the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan. The Ombudsman clarified, however, that the earlier recommendation concerned the implementation of the approved Traffic Management Plan and did not specifically recommend the installation of speed bumps. The approved plan referred to road humps, which are distinct from speed bumps.

Transport Malta confirmed that its approval had been for the installation of road humps. Following a site inspection, however, the Authority established that speed bumps had been installed instead. Transport Malta explained that speed bumps are more abrupt than road humps and are designed to reduce vehicle speeds considerably, thereby potentially generating greater levels of noise.

The investigation also established that Transport Malta’s original approval required the Local Council to ensure that there was agreement with residents concerning the proposed road humps. The complainant maintained that his household had not been consulted and had never consented to the installation.

During an onsite inspection, the Ombudsman’s Investigating Officer observed the traffic situation and reviewed video evidence submitted by the complainant. The investigation found that the speed bump was causing significant disturbance and that potentially unsafe driving behaviour continued. Vehicles were observed overtaking others that slowed down for the bump, while some motorists crossed it without reducing their speed. The road was also observed to carry traffic comparable to a main road.

The Ombudsman considered that the existing measure was not adequately addressing the underlying road safety problem. The speed bump generated repetitive noise and vibration and could encourage sudden braking and acceleration, while reckless driving and speeding continued.

The investigation considered alternative enforcement measures. While periodic speed checks or the use of speed guns could contribute to enforcement, the Ombudsman considered that a fixed speed camera would provide continuous monitoring and a more consistent deterrent without the physical disturbance associated with speed bumps or humps.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Ombudsman found the complaint justified.

While acknowledging that the original Traffic Management Plan was intended to improve road safety and serve the public interest, the Ombudsman found no clear evidence that the speed bump had achieved its intended purpose. On the contrary, the investigation established that it had caused significant and recurring inconvenience to the complainant and his family.

The Ombudsman concluded that replacing the speed bump with a speed enforcement camera would constitute a more proportionate, less intrusive and more effective means of addressing speeding, while reducing the disturbance experienced by nearby residents.

He therefore recommended the immediate removal of the speed bump in question and the concurrent installation of a speed camera in the vicinity by Transport Malta.

Outcome

The Final Opinion was communicated on 22 May 2026 to the Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure and Public Works, Transport Malta and the Mosta Local Council. In terms of Article 22 of the Ombudsman Act, they were requested to inform the Ombudsman by 19 June 2026 of the action they intended to take in response to the recommendations.

No reply was received. Consequently, on 3 July 2026, the Ombudsman referred the case to the Prime Minister in terms of Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act.

As no response was subsequently received from the Prime Minister, on 18 September 2026 the Ombudsman transmitted the Final Opinion and the relevant documentation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the attention of Parliament in terms of Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act.