Trafford Council (19 020 917)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to allow a marathon to go ahead in his and neighbouring localities without a single exit or entry point for the residents. Mr B also complains about the Council’s poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. However, the Council has taken action to address the issues and Mr B has no significant unremedied injustice for which we would recommend any further remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says the Council should not have granted a temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) which closed roads and prevented a large number of residents from exiting their locality in their vehicles during a marathon event.
  2. Mr B also says the Council failed to adequately respond to his subsequent complaint and request for information.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered:
    • Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
    • Mr B’s stage 1 and 2 complaints to the Council, and the Council’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response; and
    • The TTRO for the marathon relating to Mr B’s complaint.
  2. Mr B and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered Mr B’s comments before making a final decision. The Council advised it had no comments to make.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Mr B tried to exit the area during the morning of the marathon, as he had two events to attend that day. He says the event stewards told him there was no way for residents to leave the area, and he would have to wait until the roads reopened later that day.
  2. Mr B complained to the Council and requested information relating to its decision to allow the marathon to take place.
  3. The Council’s reply advised Mr B to contact the event organisers. The Council did not address his request for the information.
  4. Mr B escalated his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process in late-November 2019, but it did not reply, despite Mr B attempts to chase a response. In his stage 2 letter, Mr B repeated his request for the information relating to the decision so he could discuss it with his local councillors. But due to no response, Mr B brought his complaint to us in March 2020.
  5. The Council sent a response to Mr B’s stage 2 complaint on 12 August 2020. It apologised for the delay in responding and requested a telephone discussion with him about his complaint. In the same letter, the Council directed Mr B to the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with this stage 2 response.
  6. Mr B discussed his complaint with a senior council officer on 28 August 2020. This was followed up by a more formal stage 2 response from the Council on 17 September 2020.
  7. The Council said it had discussed the lack of exit points for residents with race organisers and they had agreed to include a small number of egress points in some areas, including the area Mr B lives in.
  8. The Council also took the following action:
    • Provided Mr B with contact details for the race organisers;
    • Information on how to sign up for email updates about the events;
    • Arranged for information leaflets about future events to be posted to residents; and
    • Put signs up on affected roads two weeks prior to events.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. The Council’s stage 1 response to Mr B was to contact the race organisers. I do not consider this response is a satisfactory attempt at a resolution. This is fault which the Council has accepted. The Council has discussed the matter with the relevant manager and reminded the team that replies to complaints must be approved by the Highways Manager before they are issued.
  2. On 22 November 2019, Mr B requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2. In accordance with its complaint policy, the Council should have responded, at the very latest, by 9 December 2019. However, the Council formally responded to his complaint approximately nine months later than it should have done. This is also fault.
  3. The Council advised Mr B that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the Council’s delay in responding to him. Mr B disputes this reason and I agree with him because the Council should have responded to his stage 2 complaint in December 2019 and the first lock-down due to COVID-19 did not occur until March 2020. It is likely the lockdown further delayed the response, but I do not consider it was a factor in the initial delay.
  4. I note the Council has apologised to Mr B for the extensive delay in responding to his complaint. It has also relayed Mr B’s concerns to the race organisers and looked at ways to improve access/egress for affected residents. The Council also said it appreciated the information it had provided to Mr B would be discussed further with his local councillors.
  5. Mr B would like the Council to adopt and publish a policy specifically regarding marathons. He says other Councils have done this and it provides transparency. The Council has refused to adopt such a policy but says it has taken measures to ensure events are publicised widely in advance. I do not consider this fault because the Council is entitled to make this decision.
  6. It is positive to see the Council has listened to Mr B’s concerns, put measures in place to have exit points during events for residents and improve communication with residents about road closures before future events.
  7. Although I have found fault with the Council, I consider the action taken by the Council to remedy the injustice caused to him as satisfactory. I therefore make no recommendations for further action by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is fault in the way the Council handled Mr B’s complaint. However, the Council has taken action to address the issues complained of and Mr B has no significant unremedied injustice for which we would recommend any further remedy. I have completed my investigation.

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