Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Dr Z's reports of vehicles allegedly misusing a traffic restriction scheme. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Dr Z complains about the way the Council considered reports he made about vehicles he believed did not qualify for an exemption from a local traffic restriction scheme. He says the Council simply told him it had checked the vehicles and found no issue, without providing enough information about the checks made or offering a route to challenge or escalate the enquiry. Dr Z would like the Council to provide a clearer process for reporting suspected misuse of exemptions, a way to escalate concerns, and a general explanation of the checks carried out when reviewing reports, without disclosing personal data.

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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Dr Z lives in an area covered by a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. The scheme restricts access to certain streets and allows only specified vehicles to pass through the restrictions.
6. Dr Z reported several vehicles he believed did not qualify for an exemption but were using routes subject to the traffic restrictions. The Council investigated the reports and confirmed it had checked the vehicles' exemption status. It explained that it could not disclose details of individual exemptions because doing so could reveal personal or sensitive information about third parties. The Council also explained that some exempt vehicles may not be outwardly identifiable as exempt and said it can amend or revoke exemptions if it identifies an error or misuse.
7. The Council told Dr Z trained Civil Enforcement officers review reports of suspected misuse because they have access to the relevant records and evidence. It said there is no formal appeal or challenge process for third parties who question another person's exemption, but internal audit and governance arrangements oversee the service.
8. We will not investigate Dr Z's complaint. Based on the evidence I have seen, further investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The Council investigated Dr Z's reports, explained how it checks concerns about potentially exempt vehicles, and set out the limits on the information it can disclose about individual exemptions.
9. In addition, we do not investigate every complaint we receive. When deciding whether to investigate, we consider a number of factors, including the level of personal injustice caused. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully and while I understand Dr Z remains dissatisfied with the Council's response, I do not consider the personal injustice to him to be significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr Z’s complaint; this is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman