Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s introduction of an order for a 20mph speed limit despite a negative response of residents to consultation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council introducing a 20mph limit which applies to his area. He says the residents’ response to the Council’s consultation was mainly negative but it introduced the scheme against their wishes.

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

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the Council invited residents to comment on its proposed scheme to introduce 20mph speed restrictions over a large area. He says he believes the majority of residents opposed the proposal in his area but the Council dismissed their views and introduced the scheme anyway.
5. Councils as highway authorities may introduce parking and speed restrictions in their area by way of traffic regulation orders. The order procedure is set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. This requires councils to notify the relevant authorities and publish the proposed order in a local newspaper or the London Gazette. There is no requirement to consult residents affected by the scheme but an authority may do so.
6. In this case the Council gave residents an opportunity to submit their views. Mr X says he believes the overall response was negative to the proposed scheme. He says that regardless of this the Council introduced the scheme. The Council says that following the consultation it modified the scheme and now more than 50% of residents are in favour of it.
7. Council highway authorities have powers to introduce parking and speed restrictions orders even where residents oppose them if they believe the scheme will benefit better traffic management and road safety in their area.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. There is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the traffic regulation order procedures in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman