London Borough of Enfield (21 007 502)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 05-Oct-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install traffic calming measures in the complainant’s road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision. And we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

London Borough of Redbridge (21 007 068)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 30-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not introducing traffic calming measures. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has considered the complainant’s concerns about traffic issues.

Cumbria County Council (21 001 273)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 29-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered a proposal to introduce a weight limit on a local road near where Mr X lives.

Rutland County Council (21 006 991)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 28-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to temporarily close a road where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Central Bedfordshire Council (21 000 183)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 26-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install speed cushions in the road outside the complainant’s home. The complainant was aware of the proposed location of the speed cushions and objected. Therefore, the error in Public Notice has not caused him a significant personal injustice.

Birmingham City Council (21 001 473)

Statement Not upheld Traffic management 26-Sep-2021

Summary: Mr X complained the Council considered inaccurate traffic data which did not take account of COVID-19 when approving a traffic scheme. On the basis of the information seen, there is no fault although the data was based on traffic surveys completed before the pandemic and so it is possible this is inaccurate. However, there is nothing to suggest a different decision would have been made.

Devon County Council (21 006 639)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 21-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding not to make a traffic regulation order banning heavy goods vehicles from a local road. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision.

Devon County Council (21 005 196)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 20-Sep-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s query about a highway issue. This is because the injustice caused to Mr X from this is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

London Borough of Enfield (20 011 811)

Statement Not upheld Traffic management 19-Sep-2021

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s experimental traffic management order was unlawful because information was missing from it when it was published online. He also complains that the Council failed to notify the public when it published the amended order. Mr X says the road closures caused him inconvenience, led to thousands of penalty charge notices for residents, and his wife had to drive further to get to her parents. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Suffolk County Council (20 014 139)

Statement Not upheld Traffic management 14-Sep-2021

Summary: Mr D complained the Council wrongly approved two street works permits with traffic management systems in the same street. He said because of the proximity, the electrical contractor had to postpone its works. As a result, Mr D says this caused distress due to a delay in the electrical upgrade within his home and delayed his renovation works. We found no fault in how the Council considered the applications, we cannot therefore criticise its decision to grant the permits. Also, the Council was not at fault for the electrical contractors’ delays. This is because it was not aware of its concerns at the time.