Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) in residential areas and traffic congestion. We cannot question a decision made by the Council where it has followed the correct process to make it. Part of the complaint is late with no good reasons to consider it now and there is not enough evidence of the Council’s actions causing Mr C a significant personal injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr C, complains the Council has failed to deal with traffic congestion in the local area. He says this is causing harm to him and residents he represents in his role as a councillor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D)
4. 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, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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)

6. We can only accept complaints from members of the public or their authorised representatives. This means we cannot accept complaints from councillors complaining about something relating to their position as a councillor. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invite Mr C to comment on this draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr C is a councillor and resident. He says the Council has failed to address traffic issues that he and those he represents face.
9. The law says we cannot accept complaints from councillors about something relating to their position as a councillor. As Mr C lives in the area, we can only consider his complaint as a private resident.
10. Mr C says there are too many HGVs using roads around residential areas. He says local people and businesses suffer from the excess noise and diesel fumes.
11. The Council looked at an experimental HGV restriction, but said this would need to be funded by a town or parish council.
12. We will not investigate this complaint about the number of HGVs using the local area. Mr C does not live on an affected road and does not appear to suffer any significant personal injustice from the issue complained about.
13. Mr C says that at sometime between 2001 and 2005, the Council installed three-way traffic lights to allow single traffic flow under an arched railway bridge. He says previously it was a two-way traffic flow, but the change was made to stop HGVs colliding with the bridge, which was successful, but has caused traffic problems. Mr C wants the Council to ban HGVs from passing under the bridge and return to a two-way traffic flow.
14. The Council said if it stops HGVs passing under the bridge, there would need to be a physical barrier, as it cannot rely on signs alone. The Council is concerned that high sided vehicles would have a risk of unintended collision which could result in serious injuries. The Council said it has considered the issues at the location but has no additional budget to fund changes outside of its transport plan.
15. Mr C says that there is further congestion at a roundabout outside a superstore, leading to another two roundabouts via a dual carriageway. He says it was at capacity in 2013. Mr C says future plans by the Council to divert a third of the traffic via a new road are over ambitious, and would still not achieve the necessary relief.
16. We will not investigate the traffic congestion around the railway bridge, roundabout, dual carriageway, and residential area. The change was made to the railway bridge at least 15 years ago, so the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr C could not have complained at the time. The Council can decide which issues to prioritise in its traffic plans. We cannot question decisions taken by the Council when it has followed the correct process. There is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice to Mr C.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late with no good reasons to consider it now. There is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice caused to Mr C, and we cannot accept complaints from councillors about matters relating to their position as a councillor. We cannot question decisions made by the Council where it has followed the correct process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman