Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to seal a Traffic Regulation Order into law and its refusal to investigate parts of his complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to fully investigate his complaint about a Traffic Regulation Order which has increasing parking restrictions in his area. He says the Council should not have approved, the increased restrictions are causing problems for residents and the Council’s refusal to investigate is denying him the chance of redress. He wants the Council to investigate all parts of his complaint and revoke the Order.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) enables councils to introduce parking restrictions as part of its management of the highways for road users.
6. Kent County Council is the highways authority responsible for roads in the Kent. It is responsible for formally sealing into law any decisions to introduce or amend Traffic Regulation Orders in its area.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about a decision made by his borough council, council B, to amend a TRO to increase parking restrictions in his area. He said the procedure was unfair, the decision was unreasonable, and the Council should not have sealed the Order.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said the decision to amend the TRO was made by council B. It said it would not investigate a complaint about the consultation process or how the decision was reached as this was for council B to respond to. It said it was open to Mr X to complain to council B about these points if he wished to do so.
9. It said once council B had decided to amend the TRO, it asked the Council to seal the Order into law. The Council reviewed how council B had reached its decision. It was satisfied it had followed the correct procedure and so had agreed to seal the Order as requested.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. As the Council was not responsible for the decision to amend the TRO, it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision not to investigate the parts of Mr X’s complaint related to this decision-making process.
11. The Council was satisfied council B had followed the correct process and so agreed to seal the Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman