Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing a cycle cage on the highway outside the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault causing the complainant injustice that warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council has placed a cycle cage on the highway outside his home. He says this means he has to park further away from his home which he causes him inconvenience and increases the risk of crime. The Council has refused to move the cycle cage to a different position.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The Council considered there was a demand for cycle storage in the area where Mr B lives and decided to place some cycle cages on the highway where there were existing parking bays. The cycle cages are 2.5 metres long. To do this, the Council needed to amend the existing traffic management order (TMO).
7. To amend the TMO, the Council had to follow statutory procedures in accordance with the Regulations. ( Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
8. The Regulations set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a TMO.
9. In summary, to begin the formal process, a council must:
• publish a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper;
• make documents relating to the proposal available for public inspection;
• inform statutory consultees, including the police; and
• give other publicity to the proposal that the council considers is appropriate.
10. A council must publish a notice within 14 days of making a TMO, give adequate publicity to the TMO and write to any objectors outlining the reasons for going ahead with the proposal.
11. The notice must also advise there is a right to apply to the High Court within 6 weeks of the date of the TMO. This can be on the basis that:-
• the council does not have powers to make the order; or
• the council has not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.
12. Some of the requirements were amended to take account of restrictions due to COVID-19.

Analysis

13. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council did not follow the correct procedure to amend the TMO. Mr B was consulted and objected to the amendments. The Council considered Mr B’s objections but was not persuaded to alter the proposals.
14. Since the Council made the TMO, Mr B has asked it to move the cycle cage. It has explained it could not do this without going through another statutory process and it sees no reason to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because, while I understand Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision, I have seen no evidence of fault in how it was made. Further, I do not consider the siting of the cycle cage can have caused Mr B a level of injustice that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman