Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to obtain an updated Traffic Regulation Order regarding the street in her area. This is because Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice for part of the complaint, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the process for the remainder.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to parking near her home. She said the Council:
1. failed to consult residents about the proposed changes; and
2. failed to give due consideration to her representations.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Informal consultation process

6. In 2023 the Council conducted informal consultations regarding the TRO. Mrs X said she was not included in the consultations.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council later conducted a formal consultation through which Mrs X was able to submit her objections.
8. Because Mrs X was later able to submit her objections and the Council considered these, Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Formal consultation

9. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision to obtain an updated TRO regarding the road in her area. She said the Council failed to consider her representations, the impact on parking, and the fairness of the order on all residents.
10. The Council considered the TRO at a committee meeting. The meeting bundle included a document which outlined residents’ objections to the TRO. The Council decided to proceed with the TRO despite the objections.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
12. The Council properly considered the objections it received. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the process. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint because she was not caused a significant injustice. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman