London Borough of Camden (19 007 658)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 17 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation on a proposed cycle lane scheme. Given the distance Mr X lives from the proposed scheme, it is unlikely the Council’s actions caused him a significant injustice. We have not exercised our discretion to look at how the matter affected (or will affect) other members of the public, because there is no significant evidence that anyone else has, or may have, experienced any injustice either.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council excluded important information when it consulted on a proposed cycle lane scheme.
  2. He said the Council failed to include details that the scheme involved the removal of nine of the eleven existing traffic islands.
  3. Mr X said the removal of the traffic islands would make the road dangerous to cross for people living in the area.
  4. Mr X would like the Council to re-run the consultation and make it clear what the project entails. This would allow people to comment of the scheme in full knowledge of the facts.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

  1. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
  2. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and supporting information and have spoken to him about his complaint.
  2. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
  3. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. The Council carried out a public consultation about a proposed cycle lane on a road in Mr X’s neighbourhood. Mr X lives approximately 240m from the proposal. Mr X said the Council failed to include information that nine of the eleven existing traffic islands, would be removed to accommodate the cycle lane. He said this was fundamental information for people commenting on the proposal.
  2. The Council said its standard approach for public consultation drawings is to provide an overview of the key changes proposed. It said it is necessary to strike a balance between providing people with clear, legible details of the changes proposed together with information on potential impacts and providing too much detail, which can be overwhelming and confusing. It said it is for this reason that not all design changes were labelled on the public consultation drawing, although they were shown visually.
  3. The Council highlighted that in response to the public consultation, comments were received regarding the removal of the traffic islands and therefore it is clear from these comments that there was a level of understanding from the consultation material that these proposals would result in the loss of some of the traffic islands, despite this change not being labelled. Mr X said the majority of those people who responded were alerted by him about the proposed removal of the traffic islands.
  4. The Council said the Traffic Management Order (TMO) consultation for the Prince of Wales Road scheme focused on those elements of the scheme that require a TMO. Therefore, the drawings associated with this consultation only included those proposals and they were subject to a further consultation as is statutorily required by the legislation. This is the reason why the removal of the traffic islands was not explicitly included at this stage.

My findings

  1. The Ombudsman looks at complaints in which the complainant may have experienced an injustice. I understand Mr X’s reasons for complaining are because he considers the Council’s actions could pose a risk to him and other members of the community. However, he lives some distance from the road where the proposal is, so it is unlikely he would experience a significant injustice himself.
  2. I do have discretion to investigate matters coming to my attention during an investigation, if I consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result.
  3. In this case, there may or may not be fault with the Council’s consultation process. However, I do not consider the matter to have caused a significant injustice to Mr X, and I have seen no significant evidence that anyone else may have suffered an injustice either.
  4. For this reason, I have not exercised my discretion to investigate whether the Council’s consultation process affected anyone else. If any other residents living closer to the proposed cycle lane want to complain to the Council about it, they can. If they are dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to their complaints, they can approach the Ombudsman.
  5. However, in the current absence of any identified injustice, I have discontinued my investigation. Further investigation – even resulting in a finding of fault – would not lead to a remedy for Mr X, or for other members of the public.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation into Mr X’s complaint. Mr X lives more than 200m away from the stretch of road affected by the cycle scheme. Therefore, it is unlikely Mr X has been caused a significant injustice. I have not exercised my discretion to look at how the matter affected (or will affect) other members of the public, because there is no significant evidence that anyone else has, or may have, experienced any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

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.

Privacy settings