Traffic management archive 2016-2017


Archive has 164 results

  • Coventry City Council (16 018 213)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr J complains about the information about residents parking schemes available on the Council's website and the delay in response to his complaints. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr J's complaint as any injustice caused to him is not enough to justify an investigation.

  • Essex County Council (16 015 416)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 31-Mar-2017

    Summary: I have not upheld the complaint about the Council's implementation of a road scheme.

  • Hampshire County Council (16 006 535)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr X says the Council did not follow the correct project and engineering processes when implementing traffic calming measures and that the measures have made the road more dangerous for all road users. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council in the processes it followed or any evidence supporting Mr X's claim the road is more dangerous. He has therefore ended his consideration of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Harrow (16 018 255)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: There are not good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to investigate at the present time Mr B's late complaint about problems caused by parked cars in his road. Mr B can ask the Council to consider the matter again.

  • Transport for London (16 017 134)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about congestion charging zone penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. The complainant has appealed against some penalty charge notices and should appeal against any others she has received.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (16 011 691)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it introduced a restricted parking scheme where Mr B lives. However it was at fault when it did not respond to his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B for this.

  • Hartlepool Borough Council (16 016 842)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr P's complaint about changes to parking restrictions in a controlled parking zone. There is no sign of fault in the way the Council decided to change its policy. Therefore the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of its decision.

  • Transport for London (16 017 704)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about congestion charge penalty charge notice s issued by Transport for London. There would be no worthwhile outcome as Transport for London has already cancelled the penalty charges.

  • Transport for London (16 016 983)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by TfL for failing to pay the congestion zone charge. The law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal against the penalty charge notice and the complainant can ask the courts to restore that right.

  • Somerset County Council (16 018 214)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 21-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint which is made by a town council.