Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted over changes to traffic management order. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council did not carry out adequate consultation with residents about proposed changes to a road layout in its area. Mr X said this means the changes will not improve safety in line with the Council’s stated intentions.
2. Mr X wants the Council to carry out further consultation and he wants it to implement changes that he believes will improve safety for specific road users.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The procedures for creating or altering a traffic management order (TMO) are set out in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. This requires the Council to consult with various bodies, such as transport operators, depending on the nature of the proposed TMO.
7. Regulation 7 further requires the publication of a notice in a local newspaper (and the London Gazette, for orders in Greater London). A council must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement.
8. Mr X wrote to the Council saying he was unhappy with the adequacy of the consultation, meaning the Council had not considered the views of a sufficiently wide enough group of people that may be affected. He also said where feedback was given, the final design had not then reflected the feedback given.
9. The Council replied to Mr X, highlighting it had completed the statutory consultation and received no objections. It also told him it had advertised its proposals. Finally, the Council explained how it had consulted with groups it had identified would be affected through the changes.
10. Having considered the legislative requirements and the Council’s response to Mr X, I cannot see evidence of fault that would justify an investigation. Unless a council specifically indicates otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make a TMO rests with the council.
11. In any case, Mr X wants the Council to carry out further consultation and to implement changes he believes would increase safety for specific road users and we could not direct the Council to do either of these things.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman