Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consultation with the public over the introduction of a traffic management order for a cycling and pedestrian highways project near his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s consultation with the public over a proposed traffic scheme to introduce cycling and pedestrian highway improvements in his area. He says the Council failed to make it clear in the public consultation that traffic island refuges would be removed as part of the scheme. As a result, he says residents may be exposed to danger from traffic when the islands are removed.

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’. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the consultation on the introduction of a traffic management scheme in his area did not include sufficient information for residents to comment on some aspects of it. He says the consultation did not give specific details about the removal of traffic island refuges which he says has a significant impact on residents’ safety.
6. The Council says the issues were shown on the plans for the scheme and it could not include all the details of the scheme in public consultation letters. Instead it published the plans and details on its website. The plans were subject to an independent road safety audit by an independent auditor as part of the statutory consultation. A further safety audit is proposed for the scheme once it has been operating.
7. There were objections and concerns raised by residents to the consultation relating to the traffic islands removal which indicates that some of the public were aware of the implications. The public consultation on traffic management orders is not an appeals procedure and the highway authority may introduce the measures even if there is a majority of local objections, which was not the case here.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the procedure which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman