Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to include his comments in its final consideration to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order in his area. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to include his suggestion for additional waiting restrictions in its final decision to make an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order permanent. He says that this means his parking space is being obstructed by cars parked opposite and further restrictions could resolve this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives in an area where the Council introduced a temporary Experimental Traffic Regulation Order to introduce parking restrictions throughout the estate in 2018. He says he was in favour of the order but later became concerned that it resulted in cars being parked opposite his parking bay. This restricted his access to and from the bay.
5. In late 2018 the Council wrote to residents asking for feedback about the Order which it intended to make permanent in 2019. Mr X submitted his comments asking for double yellow lines to be introduced opposite his home. He submitted similar comments to another feedback letter in January 2019. He says he received an automated acknowledgement, but the Council never wrote back to him.
6. In 2019 he found out that the decision to make the Order permanent was to be taken shortly. He complained to the Council that his comments had not been received and asked that the requested restrictions be included in the Order at the meeting. The Council was amenable to this if there were no objections to the proposals. The Council later told Mr X that it received two objections to his proposals and so it decided not to change the proposed Order.
7. Councils have powers to introduce Traffic Regulation orders regardless of objections or requests from the public. It is clear that Mr X sent his comments in response to the Council’s requests for feedback and it is unlikely that the Council would have responded to any comments at that point. He made it clear that he wanted the changes before the meeting was held but the Council decided not to do so following objections.
8. It cannot be certain whether the issues raised by Mr X would have changed the outcome even had his proposals been considered earlier. He feels they should have been included in the debate but there is no obligation to debate any objections or feedback when deciding an Order. Objectors have to be advised of the final outcome, but Mr X was not formally objecting to the scheme and he was advised of the final decision in any case.
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. in this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the council which would have changed the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman