Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Traffic management archive 2019-2020


Archive has 132 results

  • Northumberland County Council (19 019 285)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complaints about the actions of a civil enforcement officer when he parked in a loading pay to deliver an item. He also complaints an officer lied to him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

  • Surrey County Council (19 015 905)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about highway issues near the complainant's home. It is too late to complain about general highways issues which the complainant has been aware of for many years. The Ombudsman is unlikely to find evidence of fault in how the Council carried out recent resurfacing of the road on which the complainant lives.

  • Isle of Wight Council (19 007 472)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 23-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for its response to Mr B's complaint about signs on the road leading to his property. It considered the issues he raised, installed new signs, and explained why it would not take further action. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot question its decision.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 018 081)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 13-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint that the Council has failed to take action to stop people parking in front of his residence. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

  • Plymouth City Council (19 011 963)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 07-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr D's application for parking restrictions to be implemented outside his property.

  • Halton Borough Council (19 017 465)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 05-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the process and timescale for payment of the Mersey Gateway bridge toll. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could achieve anything more for Mr X.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (19 011 955)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about road safety issues raised by the complainant. The Council says it will take them into account in future so investigation would achieve no worthwhile outcome.

  • Durham County Council (19 017 126)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's failure to implement traffic calming measures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (19 010 770)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 27-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about people parking next to their dropped kerb. They say this is illegal and obstructs they driveway. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's actions.

  • London Borough of Camden (19 007 658)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 17-Feb-2020

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X's complaint about the Council's consultation on a proposed cycle lane scheme. Given the distance Mr X lives from the proposed scheme, it is unlikely the Council's actions caused him a significant injustice. We have not exercised our discretion to look at how the matter affected (or will affect) other members of the public, because there is no significant evidence that anyone else has, or may have, experienced any injustice either.