Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Traffic management


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Transport for London (21 009 513)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 28-Jun-2022

    Summary: Ms B complains Transport for London has not dealt properly with ULEZ compliance relating to her vehicle. Transport for London is not at fault.

  • Milton Keynes Council (21 006 063)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 09-Jun-2022

    Summary: There was fault by the Council as there was delay in considering a residents request for parking restrictions. There is no evidence of how officers decided not to consult on installing double yellow lines, but the Council has now reached a decision. The Council's goodwill contribution towards a H bar marking, payment and agreement to keep Mr X informed about fencing to stop vehicles parking on verges is a satisfactory remedy to this complaint.

  • Derbyshire County Council (21 016 469)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 05-Jun-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to approve a walking and cycling route in his area which includes a proposal to permanently close a road near to him. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consult about the scheme. The Council failed to deliver consultation leaflets to Mr X and a number of other residents as part of the consultation. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because he was already aware of the scheme and had the opportunity to provide his comments at the relevant time. The proposed road closure is subject to a Traffic Regulation Order and Mr X and others will have the opportunity to submit further representations as part of that process.

  • Darlington Borough Council (21 009 936)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 24-May-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D's complaint about the Council failing to carry out proper monitoring of high speeds on a stretch of road near his home. It provided evidence showing why it monitored where it did, contact it had with the police, why the police did not deploy officers to carry out enforcement monitoring near his home, and of Mr D making the police aware of his concerns.

  • Leicester City Council (21 013 612)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 16-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains about a statement made by a council officer on the impact of coloured pedestrian crossings on disabled people. Mrs X also says the Council constructed the coloured pedestrian crossing in breach of its public sector equality duty. I have discontinued my investigation of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (21 010 918)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 15-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains about the introduction of an experimental traffic order on a road he lives near to. He also complains about the engagement exercise the Council completed and says it was not fit for purpose. We find fault with the Council for failing to keep accurate records of its decision making in relation to who to consult with during the engagement exercise. However, we do not consider the fault identified caused any injustice.

  • Bristol City Council (21 010 445)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with parking issues near his home. We found that, while the Council properly processed changes to local parking restrictions, it failed to communicate clearly with Mr X. The Council's apologies to Mr X had already addressed the frustration caused by its poor communication.

  • Norfolk County Council (21 000 050)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 25-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr G complained about the Council's consultation for a traffic regulation order. He says there were several flaws in the Council's process. The effect was they were excluded from the consultation process and now have a bus stop opposite their home. He also complains the bus company used the stop as a terminus, contrary to the order, and the Council refused to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman's decision is there was no fault by the Council.

  • Sunderland City Council (21 001 404)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 28-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about dangerous and illegal parking outside a business on the road where he lives. Access to Mr X's home has often been blocked as a result. He said the Council failed to take effective action or come up with a resolution. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's response to Mr X's complaints.

  • Devon County Council (21 002 229)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 04-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his reports about the condition of the road near to his home. We found there was no fault by the Council.