Archive has 123 results
-
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 608)
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 02-Jan-2020
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take action in respect of parking issues outside his property. The Council treated the area as a hot spot and so increased the number of enforcement visits. It says this did not indicate a problem at a level that required it to take further action. This is the Council’s professional judgement and there is no evidence of fault in how it reached this view.
-
Statement Upheld Traffic management 24-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to follow due process in relation to a consultation for a traffic management scheme. Mr B says the Council agreed the scheme but then unreasonably decided not to proceed which will mean residents will continue to suffer daily traffic problems. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault due to delay and poor communication but considers the agreed actions of an apology and review of procedure are enough to provide a suitable remedy.
-
North Yorkshire County Council (19 006 645)
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 23-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s plan to convert the footpath on his road into a shared cycle path. The Council was not at fault in the way it planned to introduce a sustainable transport scheme.
-
London Borough of Brent (19 012 001)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 11-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to act to prevent damage to his home by vibrations caused by speed cushions installed 10 years ago. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is too late.
-
Milton Keynes Council (18 015 644)
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 10-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr B says the Council has failed to provide appropriate safety measures to a section of road. There are many accidents, resulting in damage to Mr B’s property. Because the accidents do not involve personal injury, they do not trigger the Council’s traffic and transport policy. Mr B says this policy is flawed. It is not fault for the Council to prioritise its limited budget towards casualty reduction. The Council has done works to improve this site under its traffic management programme. Mr B is not satisfied those works are enough, but I find no fault in how the Council decided what was appropriate action.
-
Nottinghamshire County Council (19 007 963)
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 09-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his request for parking restrictions. There was no fault by the Council, although it could have explained its decision more fully in response to Mr X’s complaint.
-
Northumberland County Council (19 011 250)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 03-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to retain traffic calming measures on the road into the housing estate on which he lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because events from 2017 fall outside our jurisdiction and an investigation of more recent events would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
-
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 010 349)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 02-Dec-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council has dealt with complainant’s road safety concerns. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council.
-
Staffordshire County Council (19 001 927)
Statement Not upheld Traffic management 29-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consult residents before introducing temporary waiting restrictions, incorrectly worded the published order, wrongly said the restrictions would last for 18 months, unreasonably extended the temporary waiting restrictions to his road when it is not on the construction traffic route and erected signage on his road which refers to the wrong time restrictions. There is no fault in how the Council handled this case.
-
Swindon Borough Council (18 013 914)
Statement Upheld Traffic management 22-Nov-2019
Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to implement planned parking restrictions in his area. He says one of the reasons he bought his house was because of the planned parking restrictions. He seeks compensation. He believes the Council’s failure to implement and enforce the restrictions is a safety risk. The Council did implement the parking restrictions. However, it is at fault for causing uncertainty because of its delay developing a clear enforcement strategy alongside the restrictions. We do not consider the Council should pay Mr X compensation but we have recommended Mr X is paid a sum to acknowledge the time and trouble he took to bring his complaint and to acknowledge the distress the delay caused him.