The council have accepted my formal complaint; 

"Unsatisfactory resolution of the original complaint

You consider the response and resolution provided by Liz Lefferman to be unsatisfactory, as it does not adequately address the barriers created by the speed hump installation on the B4450 at Churchill.
Inaccessibility for your wheelchair-accessible vehicle

The current design of the speed hump makes it impossible for your wheelchair-accessible vehicle to pass without causing damage.
This has created a physical barrier to essential travel, directly impacting your ability to access services and maintain independence.
Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

You believe the installation represents a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, as it fails to accommodate a resident with a protected characteristic and does not provide equal access to the highway.
Proceeding despite known risks and inadequate consultation

Your Freedom of Information request revealed that the council proceeded with the scheme knowing that only a “majority” of vehicles would be unaffected.
You are concerned that there was no adequate consultation with disability representatives or ambulance transport services before installation.
Lack of warning and wider community impact

No preventative signage has been installed to warn drivers that vehicles with low clearance cannot use this route.
As a result:

Two additional vehicles belonging to local residents have been damaged
People with horses and those using mobility aids have experienced difficulty navigating the hump
Disputed justification for the design

You dispute the assertion that a lower hump height would be ineffective.
You point to successful lower-profile speed reduction measures already in use in Chipping Norton and Charlbury, which you believe contradict this claim.
Disproportionate travel, financial, and independence impact

You are forced to take a four-mile detour each way, resulting in approximately 16 additional miles per week.
This causes:

Financial strain due to additional fuel and vehicle use
Risk of exceeding the 10,000-mile annual cap on your Motability vehicle
Reduced independence
The alternative route is subject to severe congestion, particularly due to traffic associated with Clarkson’s Farm Shop, a burden not shared by residents able to use the direct route.
Formal equality concerns raised externally

After consulting with the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) and submitting a 300-signature petition, you believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the discriminatory impact of the current design.

and your desired outcomes are:

Reconsideration of the speed hump design

You want the council to reconsider and redesign the speed hump so that it is inclusive and accessible to all road users, including those using wheelchair-accessible and low-clearance vehicles.
Compliance with equality duties

You are seeking assurance that the scheme will be brought into full compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty, including proper consideration of disabled residents’ needs.
Meaningful consultation

You want appropriate consultation with disability groups, affected residents, and relevant transport services to ensure barriers are properly identified and avoided.
Mitigation of current impacts

You would like steps taken to remove or reduce the need for excessive detours, limit additional mileage imposed on your Motability vehicle, and address congestion impacts.
Clear proposal and response from the council

You are requesting a formal response that sets out a clear, practical solution to the equality and accessibility concerns raised."

This is another step towards resolving the community concern that this is not the appropriate solution for 'all' motorists using this road.