Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him of the advertising costs associated with his application for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. We have found fault and the Council has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to inform him of the advertising costs associated with his application for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
2. He said the Council sent him an invoice for over £2,000 for the application and the advertisement costs. This invoice was a shock to him and caused him significant stress.
3. Mr X thinks the application form should be updated to give future applicants an indication of how much the fees might be.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the supporting information.
8. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X.
9. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992

10. Section 3 of the Regulations sets out the procedures for making a temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO).
11. It specifies that not less than 7 days before making an order, the Council should publish notice of its intention to make the order in one or more newspapers circulating in the area. The Regulations specify what information the notice should include.
12. The Regulations go on to state that on or before the day the order is made, the Council should give notice of the order. Again, it states what the notice should contain.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

13. Section 15(1)(a) states that a TTRO for the closure of a public right of way shall not continue in force for more than six months. If an order needs to continue beyond that time limit, the Council must apply to the Department for Transport for an extension.

What happened

14. Mr X applied for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order to close a small public right of way adjacent to his house. Early in the process, he contacted the Council to confirm the cost of the application as he felt it to be high considering it was just a small footpath with minimum disruption as opposed to a highway. The Council confirmed the cost of the application to be £584.40 and provided Mr X with different payment options.
15. Mr X said the application form stated there would be some outside advertising costs involved but it did not specify an estimated amount.
16. The Council approved the footpath closure and sent Mr X an invoice for the full cost of the application and the advertisement fees. This totalled £2,310.06 and included:
• £584.40 for the Council’s TRO application.
• £862.83 for the notice of intention (outside advertising cost)
• £862.83 for the notice of making (outside advertising cost)
17. Mr X contacted the Council to raise his concerns about the cost of the advertising. The Council sent Mr X the invoices sent by the local newspaper to the Council for the two notices. It explained the newspaper charges a cost per word and this is passed on to the applicant. It acknowledged the Council did not make Mr X aware of the costs at the time of his application or during the process of making the order. The Council said this was because each advertisement differs in value and it is not able to provide a confirmed cost until it receives the invoice from the newspaper.
18. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council should have made it clear from the outset that the Order required more than one notice. He said if the Regulations require that notices contain specific information, and the Council must handle a lot of these applications, it would be possible to identify an approximate amount.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s Stage 2 complaint. It said the original TRO application form did make reference to the addition of “outside advertising costs which will be charged at cost”. However, the Council had now amended the application form with the addition of the following text “These advertising charges are approximately £2000 but vary dependant on the size of the advertisement”.
20. During my investigation, I asked Mr X whether he would have still applied for the footpath closure if he had been aware of the advertisement costs. He said that he needed the footpath to be closed for safety reasons as his project involves the demolition of a property and the construction of a new one, but he would have planned it differently.
21. He said his project is in two phases. Firstly, the demolition of the property which required the closure of the footpath. Then, a period of time later, he would need to apply for another TRO for the footpath closure to allow him to build the new property.
22. Mr X said, if he had known the costs involved, he would have planned it differently to include both the demolition and construction in the same phase. This would mean, he would only need to apply and pay for one temporary TRO for the footpath closure.
23. The law allows for a six month closure of a public right of way. Therefore, it would have been possible for both the demolition and reconstruction to be accommodated in one order.

My Findings

24. The Council was at fault for failing to give Mr X an indication of how much the advertisement costs could be. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has amended its application form to reflect this. This should ensure that future applicants do not encounter the same shock and stress as experienced by Mr X.
25. I have found fault with the Council. It was not just the omission of cost details on the form, but also the failure of the officers to alert Mr X when he contacted them on a number of occasions in the early stages of the application process. The evidence suggests Mr X was clearly concerned about costs when he asked the Council about the large fees for the TRO application.
26. Mr X experienced an injustice as a result of the Council’s fault. The unexpected costs caused him stress and inconvenience.
27. The Council has amended the application form to include information about the estimated advertisement costs. This will help future applicants.

Agreed action

28. Within 4 weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for the undue stress and inconvenience caused;
• pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused; and
• reduce the outstanding balance of the invoice due for the first closure from £2310.06 to £1447.23, therefore only charging for half of the external advertising costs.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council was at fault for failing to advise Mr X of the advertisement fees before he submitted his TRO application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman