Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council consulted residents about a traffic regulation order. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consult residents about a traffic regulation order (TRO) which restricted parking outside his home. He says the TRO reduces parking availability for his family and the Council did not invite or listen to alternatives. He wants the Council to reassess the scheme and consider his suggestions.

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 also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council proposed a TRO which restricted parking during certain times to address traffic concerns that residents raised. It published a public notice setting out the proposed TRO and inviting objections.
6. The Council received two objections, including one from Mr X. His objections raised concerns about the impact on his family’s parking and suggested alternative measures to address the traffic issues.
7. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered Mr X’s objections and suggestions and gave reasons for its decision to proceed with its proposal. The Council then formalised the TRO and has since brought into effect the parking restrictions proposed.
8. Mr X has since complained to the Council, repeating his concerns and making further suggestions. The Council responded to Mr X, explained why it did not consider the alternatives workable, and set out why it considered the parking restrictions were appropriate.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. While Mr X is unhappy the Council’s consultation focused on its proposal for dealing with the traffic issues rather than inviting suggestions from members of the public, it is for the Council as highway authority to decide what to do and I am satisfied it followed proper processes in making the TRO.
11. The Council consulted through a public notice and appropriately considered any objections received. Mr X had the opportunity to raise concerns and suggestions in his objection, and the evidence I have seen shows the Council considered them and made a decision it was entitled to make. The fact it decided to proceed with its proposal, rather than Mr X’s, is not itself evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman