Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation for traffic restrictions in the street where she lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the way it handled the consultation. An investigation by the Ombudsman is therefore not warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of its consultation for an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) affecting the street where she lives. She says the Council failed to:

• inform her about its consultation and its decision to impose the order.
• sufficiently consider the comments it received about disabled access for residents with mobility issues.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman, her complaint correspondence with the Council and its responses to my enquiries. I have also considered Mrs X’s comments of draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders

5. An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) imposes traffic and parking restrictions such as road closures, controlled parking and other parking regulations. Anyone that fails to comply with an ETRO may receive a penalty charge notice (PCN).

What happened

6. The Council is running a Healthy School Streets scheme in some parts of the Borough. This aims to reduce traffic near its schools for the safety and wellbeing of the children and for the benefit of residents in the area. Mrs X lives near a school which the Council had identified as suitable for its scheme. It consulted residents in the area on its proposals and decided to impose an ETRO covering the street where Mrs X lives. The restrictions make it an offence to enter the area during specific times unless the vehicle has a resident permit or an exemption.
7. Mrs X was unhappy about the ETRO and complained to the Council. She said the restrictions prevents her accessing her home as has mobility issues and the Council failed to consider disabled access. She also said it did not consult her before imposing the restrictions. Nor did it tell her it put the restrictions in place.
8. In response the Council explained it had sent consultation materials about the proposed restrictions to Mrs X and all other addresses in her street. It had received and considered comments from some of her neighbours. As a result, the Council said it put exemptions in place to minimise the impact of the restrictions on those with disabilities. It told Mrs X it sent a notification letter to all addresses in the consultation area before imposing the restrictions. The letter explained how the restrictions would work in practice. Including how local residents could apply for residents permits to be exempt from the restrictions and further exemptions available for those with disabilities. It also publicised the notice on its website.
9. Mrs X was not happy with the response and asked the Council to escalate her complaint. But the Council told Mrs X it had fully explained its position in its first response and the complaint would not benefit for further review. Mrs X remains unhappy about not receiving the consultation documents and the Council responses.

Assessment

10. I appreciate Mrs X is certain she did not receive the consultation documents. But the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council’s consultation unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it as handled. From the information currently available to me, I am unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation into the complaint. In reaching my view I am particularly mindful that:

• the Council has confirmed it sent leaflets to all addresses in the consultation area.
• its consultation report shows it received a substantial number of comments to its proposals. Including comments from residents in Mrs X’s street.
• its report also shows it considered the comments and included exceptions in the ETRO to minimise the impact on those with disabilities.
• the Council has confirmed it sent letters to all addresses in the consultation area notifying residents about the ETRO and publicised it on its website.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in way the Council handled its consultation. An investigation by the Ombudsman is therefore not warranted.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman