Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council introduced a 20 mph speed limit. It is unlikely he would find any fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council introduced a 20 mph speed limit before it had made the required Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). He says this meant he had to observe speed limits which did not have any legal force.

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;
• the 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and comments he provided on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B says the Council displayed a 20 mph speed limit before it properly made the relevant TRO so it was not enforceable. He accepts the speed limit is now legal.
6. Mr B also says the Council wrongly told a town council the speed limit had taken effect.

Back to top

Final decision

7. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because, even had there been fault by the Council, we are unlikely to find this caused Mr B injustice warranting the use of public funds to pursue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman