Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the full fee for a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to reduce the fee for a new Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) despite having done so previously. He also complains the Council failed to consider the impact of unprecedented poor weather on his ability to complete the work on time.

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.

(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. Mr X obtained a TTRO to close a public right of way (PROW) while he carried out work. The licence was valid for six months.
6. In 2025, the Council agreed to grant a new licence at a reduced fee as a gesture of goodwill because there was confusion as to whether the original licence had been cancelled or not.
7. Mr X did not complete the works before the new licence expired. Nor did he apply for an extension to the licence within the timescales detailed on the paperwork.
8. The Council advised Mr X that as the licence had expired, the closure of the PROW was unlawful. It advised Mr X that he should reinstate the PROW to its original condition to allow safe use. Or Mr X should apply for a new licence which would incur the full fee. Mr X chose to apply for a new licence and pay the full fee.
9. I understand Mr X believes the Council should have charged him a reduced rate as it had previously. And it should exercise discretion as the poor weather had prevented the work from being completed.
10. However, the Council explained it changed the reduced fee specifically because of the confusion about whether an earlier licence had been cancelled. This circumstance did not continue to apply because Mr X did not apply for an extension of time and the existing licence had expired.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. It explained why it charged him a reduced rate previously which was a gesture of goodwill. It was entitled to charge the full fee as Mr X had to apply for a new licence as the existing licence had expired and the PROW remained unlawfully closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman