Summary: Mr X complains the Council refuses to accept his complaint about its decision to introduce changes to the traffic layout in the town where he lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Councils actions. Nor do we consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the Councils actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refuses to accept his complaint about its decision to introduce changes to the traffic layout in the town where he lives.
2. He wants the Council to accept the complaint or tell him who he can contact to discuss the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
5. 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
• the 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council can make an experimental traffic regulation order without the need to advertise the proposal or consider objections.
8. The law requires the Council to publish an experimental traffic order 7 days before taking effect. It does not require any consultation before making an experimental order.
9. The Council made and experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO) which changes the traffic layout where Mr X lives. Mr X is a health and safety professional. He complained to the Council about the changes, stating safety concerns.
10. The Council refused to accept Mr X’s concerns as a complaint. It advises the ETRO enables changes to be made quickly to ensure the scheme can be adapted to meet the needs of residents. The measures in place are subject to ongoing public consultation. Therefore, it has forwarded Mr X’s concerns to the department which is collating the representations and comments it receives in the scheme. They will be considered as part of the consultation process. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions on this point.
11. The Local Government Ombudsman must consider not only any fault which a complainant has alleged, but also the injustice caused to them as a direct consequence of that failure. Mr X’s concerns may not have been accepted as a formal complaint; however, they have been forwarded to the department collating the comments received on the ETRO. I consider there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to accept Mr X’s concerns about the changes to the traffic layout as a formal complaint. Nor do we consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman