Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation on a new traffic restriction scheme. And its refusal to allow him to apply for an exemption to the restrictions. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council excluded residents from his road from a consultation on traffic restrictions around a nearby school. He also complains the Council refuses to allow residents of his road to apply for exemptions because the road is outside the scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has introduced clean air zones, known as School Streets (the Scheme), around some schools in its area. This prevents non-residential traffic from entering designated zones (the Zone) around the time schools open and close.
6. Vehicles entering the zone within certain times without an exemption receive a fixed penalty notice.
7. The Council must advertise the proposed changes in a local newspaper and place notices in the streets affected. It must also consult certain bodies such as the Police, emergency services and Transport for London.
8. In 2024, the Council proposed to introduce a scheme around a local primary school. Mr X lives in a road just beyond the boundary of the scheme.
9. The Council consulted with residents, whose addresses are directly impacted by the scheme. It also placed notices in local newspapers and publicised the proposal on its social media. Residents of Mr X’s road responded to a survey about the scheme.
10. Mr X complained to the Council its consultation was flawed. In response, the Council advised:
• Residents and business whose properties or vehicle access is in any of the roads directly affected were consulted.
• It put notices in local newspapers.
• Responses were received from residents of Mr X’s road.
11. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
12. From the information I have seen, the Council met its statutory obligations for consulting on the proposed traffic restrictions.
13. Mr X also complains that residents of his road are not exempt from the scheme. However, the Council is not obliged to provide exemptions for those not directly affected by the scheme. Mr X and other residents in his road are not prevented from accessing their homes during the times the scheme is operating. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman