Leeds City Council (19 008 069)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to close the road where she lives. There was no fault in the way the Council introduced a temporary Traffic Regulation Order. There was some fault in the maintenance procedures of the site and in the Council’s complaint response.
The complaint
- Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to close the road where she lives. She has, at times, had access to her home blocked. She said the diversion route is unsafe due to inadequate signs which motorists ignored.
- Mrs X said there were occasions vehicles reversed into the path of traffic, or where she was nearly involved in accidents, causing distress.
- Mrs X wants the Council to provide clear information to residents about how they can access their homes. She also wants clearer road signs about the diversion and one-way streets.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
- 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)
- We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
- Mrs X’s complaint and supporting information;
- The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint;
- The Council’s response to my enquiries;
- The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992;
- The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
- I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with a draft of this decision and considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
- To introduce temporary changes to the highway, a council must make a temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in accordance with the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992.
- There is no legal obligation for a council to consult with residents, but councils will generally carry out informal consultation before deciding whether to go through the formal process of creating a TRO. Any informal consultation is not binding. It is for councils to decide how to use the results of consultation.
- The decision to make a TRO rests with the Council. The Ombudsman is not a regulator. It is our role to consider if there was fault in how the Council made or set up the TRO.
- The Council must ensure satisfactory publicity of the TRO, including placing a notice in a local newspaper containing details about the order.
- The Council must also ensure signs are in place before the order comes into effect and it must maintain them.
- The Council has a two stage complaints process. When considering complaints, it is the Council’s procedure to look into the comments and check all records before deciding whether to uphold the complaint.
What happened
- Mrs X lives in an apartment block in a city centre location. Several other apartment blocks are on the same street. In 2018 a property developer approached the Council about plans to replace the cladding of an apartment blocks on Mrs X’s street, following the Grenfell tower fire in London.
- The Council met with the property developer on 4 October 2018 to discuss the works and review the traffic management requirements. A one-way road closure was considered the best choice to ensure access was maintained while ensuring the works could continue in a timely manner.
- For the works to go ahead, the Council decided it must put a temporary road closure in place and to divert traffic, using signs to tell motorists.
- The management company acting for the property developer wrote to residents of the building affected on 16 April 2019 to tell them about the works and road closure. It gave full details of the road closure and diversion. The letter confirms the Health and Safety Executive were consulted about the plans and their recommendations were acted upon. Residents were told to exit their car park at minimum speed. Contact details for the management company were provided if residents had any questions or concerns.
- The property developer sent an email to the Council on 18 April 2019 to confirm they were appointing a contractor to carry out the cladding work. They said work would begin on 29 April 2019 and run until about October or November 2019.
- The Council drew up a notice for the works on 26 April 2019 and placed notices at the site on 1 May 2019. The Council also published details of the works in a local newspaper.
- A traffic management site inspection took place on 21 May 2019. The Council conducted a further site inspection on 30 May 2019. It found there had been vandalism to some road signs. The Council advised the contractor to check the signs at least three times per week.
- The Council’s records show further site inspections took place weekly between May 2019 and December 2019. Two inspections a week took place between June and September 2019, one on Mondays and one on Fridays. There is no record of an inspection taking place between 7 and 11 October or between 28 October and 1 November. Inspections then took place once a week, every Monday, until the middle of December 2019. The contractor took corrective action when signs were damaged or had fallen.
- Mrs X emailed the Council on 18 June 2019 to complain about the works and safety of the diversion. She provided photographs of the disruption she said the Council’s planning caused. She wanted an explanation about how the Council allowed this to happen.
- The pictures show a crowded one-way street, with car, bus and pedestrian traffic. There is also a picture of a car parked on double yellow lines facing the oncoming traffic on the one-way street.
- The Council replied to Mrs X on 24 June 2019. It said the site was inspected again and found to be safe, with all signs in place. It confirmed a temporary TRO was in place for a road closure and reversal of the one-way system. The Council said it cannot be responsible for motorists committing road traffic offences and this should be reported to the police.
- Mrs X emailed the Council again on 24 June 2019 as she was unhappy with the complaint response. She said the site isn’t safe and asked for evidence to support the Council’s claim it was safe. Mrs X also asked for clear road signs to be in place. She said there is constant oncoming traffic and two-way traffic on a narrow one-way road. This is potentially dangerous. She argued it is not clear this is a one-way system. She also asked how long the works will take.
- The Council wrote to Mrs X on 4 July 2019 with its stage two reply. It stated it believed Mrs X’s complaint was about the road closure and inadequate signage, leading to motorists ignoring road closures and not following diversion routes. The Council said the road closure was in place to ensure safety of highways users while refurbishment of a prominent building on Mrs X street took place. The work needed heavy plant equipment to reach the building’s roof. The Council said officers checked the signs on site are of the required standard. It told the company managing the site to ensure signs are regularly checked and maintained.
- Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s explanation. She sent further emails challenging its decision on 1 and 5 August 2019.
- The Council replied on 14 August 2019. It said it issued its final response to Mrs X complaint and she could complain to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
- Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 August 2019. She said the Council blocked access to her property, which was against her human rights. She said the Council needed to make diversion signs clearer and it had forgotten about the safety of the public. Mrs X later complained the Council extended the works and road closure.
- The Council met with the highways department and the works contractor to discuss a possible extension of the works on 22 August 2019. The parties discussed alternatives, such as a partial road opening and weekend working, but these were not considered feasible. An extension was therefore agreed. The parties agreed residents must be told and the road would be reopened over the Christmas period. The parties also agreed the site contractor was to look into use of more robust signs, because of signs being knocked down, and use of symbols to show the diversion route.
- The contractor emailed the Council on 27 August to confirm diversion signs will have black squares added to tell them apart from other signs. Sandbags will be used to stop signs falling or being pushed over.
- The managing company wrote to residents on 30 August 2019 to tell them about extending the road closure. The new end date was 28 February 2020. It said this was to ensure safe working in unforeseen weather.
- Updated signs were placed on site to show the new end date for the works and the road closure.
Response to my enquiries
- The Council said at the start of the TRO process it carries out coordination checks and ensures the application meets the necessary criteria. It then carries out consultation. The TRO is advertised in the local press, then on site. This is usually by placing notices on lamp posts. Additionally, the TRO is sent to the emergency services, public transport bodies, internal departments and local members.
- The Council told me the management company carried out consultation in this case. They wrote to residents of the building where the works were taking place to tell them of the plans.
- The Council said the one-way road closure was considered least disruptive to residents and ensured the work was carried out in a suitable timeframe. It was the best solution to lessen the impact of the necessary road closure.
- The Council said it was sorry Mrs X has suffered inconvenience, but access has always been possible via the diversion. It can be busy at peak times, but this is expected in a city centre location. The one-way system in use for the diversion is in no way less safe than the previous one-way system it replaced. The street must be one-way travel due to the width of the carriageway.
Analysis
- The Council has showed it followed the correct procedure to set up the TRO. It is not obligated to carry out consultation, but the management company did write to residents of the building to tell them and give them the opportunity to comment. Mrs X said the Council did not write and warn residents of her building, which is further down the street. It would have been a big undertaking to write to all residents on the street and I do not criticise the Council for not doing this. The plans were published by the Council in a local newspaper and notices were placed on site. I do not consider the Council was not at fault for the way it introduced the TRO.
- Mrs X is unhappy at the diversion route used by the Council. She thinks it is unsafe and signs in place are not clear. The Council has shown it properly considered the road closure and the diversion route. It provided me with the reasons for its decision and I have also seen evidence correct signs were placed on site. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but I have not found fault in the way the Council arrived at the decision so I cannot question its merits.
- Following the site meeting on 30 May the Council recommended the contractor carry out inspections of the signs at least three times per week. The evidence I have seen does not show this happened.
- After an early pattern of two inspections per week from June to October, this then falls to one inspection per week in November and December. Over a six-month period, I consider it reasonable the Council should have been aware the pattern of inspections was not what it recommended. Particularly considering the Council visited the site in response to Mrs X’s complaint.
- The Council is ultimately responsible for ensuring signs are in place and maintained. The Council has correctly told me the contractor is responsible for the condition of the site and I would not expect the Council to interfere as a matter of course. However, in this case there were concerns from residents and the Council recommended three inspections a week partly because of those concerns. Despite a further complaint from Mrs X the Council did not check the records. That was fault.
- However, the records do confirm regular inspections were taking place and any problems were resolved. While the Council cannot eliminate all risks, there was potential for issues to go unresolved for several days, and later for up to a week, before the next inspection.
- I recognise a failure to carry out more regular inspections could contribute to a lack of clarity about the diversion. However, on balance, inspections were taking place and I do not consider there is enough evidence to say the fault caused motorists to go the wrong way down the diversion or block the road.
- I do not consider Mrs X suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s fault. The failure to check the contractor’s inspection records does not alter the fact there was no fault in the TRO process or in the Council’s decision to close the road and select a diversion route. I understand Mrs X has suffered frustration and distress because of the road closure, but I do not link this to the fault which occurred.
- I have seen the Council’s complaint responses and I do not consider it adequately investigated. Mrs X was complaining about the road closure and the safety of the diversion. She specifically referred to problems with signs on site. While the Council visited the site and told Mrs X it was safe in its stage one response I do not consider this was enough. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage one reply and asked the Council for evidence the road was safe.
- If the Council had looked into Mrs X’s complaint more thoroughly it would have realised it had already advised the contractor to carry out three site visits a week because of concerns from residents. It would be reasonable in the circumstances to expect the Council to ask the contractor to see the inspection records. If it had it would have seen the contractor was not recording three inspections per week as the Council recommended.
- The Council’s procedure is to check all records and decide whether to uphold the complaint. I do not consider it did so. That was fault.
- The Council later recognised a need for more robust signs, and for symbols to be used on the signs to show the diversion route. It had the opportunity to explore this in response to Mrs X’s complaint, to inform her about the recommendations made to the contractor, and to confirm what action it took. If it had done so it may have eased some of Mrs X’s concerns. Instead Mrs X was caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. That is her injustice.
Agreed action
- Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- In future the Council will check the site inspection logs of contractors when responding to similar complaints about maintenance or safety.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the way the Council introduced a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. There was some fault in the maintenance procedures of the site and in the Council’s complaint response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman