Summary: Mr X complains that the Council’s experimental traffic management order was unlawful because information was missing from it when it was published online. He also complains that the Council failed to notify the public when it published the amended order. Mr X says the road closures caused him inconvenience, led to thousands of penalty charge notices for residents, and his wife had to drive further to get to her parents. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains about the Council’s introduction of experimental traffic management orders. Specifically, he complains that:
1. the traffic management order was unlawful because it had information missing when it was first published; and,
2. the Council did not notify the public when it published the amended traffic management order.
2. Mr X says the road closures caused him inconvenience, and the traffic management orders led to thousands of penalty charge notices for residents. He says the road closures meant his wife had to drive further, in congested traffic, to get to her parents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
5. I considered the relevant regulations, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. The government published regulations setting out the procedure for councils to follow when making traffic management orders (TMOs). There are two particular documents councils need to publish when making a TMO. These are:
• a map clearly showing the location and effect of the order and, where appropriate, alternative routes for diverted traffic; and,
• a statement of reasons setting out why the council wants to make the order.
7. The regulations say a person can see the TMO documents at the council’s main office.
8. During COVID-19, the government published regulations which set out temporary changes to this process. Instead of making the notices and TMO documents available at a council’s main office, councils must publish notices in alternative ways. The regulations say this could include online publication, leaflet distribution, or by letter. The regulations say it is for the council to say what it considers an appropriate way to inform people likely to be affected by the TMO.

What happened

9. In August 2020, the Council published an experimental traffic management order (TMO) which affected Mr X’s road and others nearby. Council published the TMO notice and documents on its website. This did not contain a statement of reasons.
10. In October, the Council updated the published TMO notice on its website to include the statement of reasons.
11. In December, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the TMO was unlawful because it did not have the statement of reasons when it was first published.
12. The Council replied, saying the missing statement of reasons was an administrative error. It said it corrected the error in October by adding the statement of reasons to the TMO documents online.
13. The Council said the TMO notice it published in August set out its alternative arrangements for people to review key documents. This included viewing the documents on the Council’s website and/or requesting copy by email or in writing. The Council said the statement of reasons was not on its website, but it had been drafted and was available on request.
14. The Council said people have six months from the date a TMO comes into operation to make representations and objections as to whether the order should be made permanent. It said the error was corrected after two months, leaving four months of the original consultation period for people to comment.
15. The Council said in November it had amended one of its TMOs which re-started the six-month consultation period for all of its TMOs, including the one affecting Mr X.
16. Mr X replied, saying there should be a map showing alternative routes for diverted traffic. He said the map provided was not adequate.
17. The Council replied. It said the regulations say councils should publish alternative routes for diverted traffic “where appropriate”. The Council said the published documents were sufficient to convey the effect of the TMO and allow people to assess an alternative route if they wish.
18. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Missing information

19. Mr X complains that the traffic management order (TMO) was unlawful because it had information missing when it was first published (part a of the complaint). He says the information that was missing was the statement of reasons and a map showing alternative routes.
20. In August, the Council published the TMO on its website without the statement of reasons. The Council says this was an administrative error, and the statement of reasons was available on request.
21. I find that this was an administrative error that the Council identified and rectified within a relatively short time. I do not consider this error is significant enough to constitute fault. The Council had completed the statement of reasons and it was available on request. The website was not the only way to view the documents.
22. Mr X says the Council modified another TMO and had to republish it after it found an error. He says because the Council had to republish that TMO, he believes it should have republished the TMO in question with the statement of reasons.
23. I do not agree. That modified TMO was republished because it contained an error in its content. The TMO in question here did not contain an error and therefore did not need to be republished. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
24. Mr X complains that the TMO did not contain a map showing alternative routes.
25. I have seen the maps included in the TMO notice. There is one large map showing all the restrictions and individual maps showing the restrictions in much finer detail.
26. The regulations say that TMO documents must contain a map which “clearly shows the location and effect of the order as proposed to be made … and, where appropriate, alternative routes for diverted traffic”.
27. The Council felt the maps it published were sufficient to convey the effects of the TMO and enable people to work out an alternative route. I agree. There is no requirement for a council to publish a map with alternative routes for diverted traffic, so I do not find the Council at fault for not publishing such a map.

Failure to notify the public

28. Mr X complains that the Council did not notify the public when it published the amended traffic management order (part b of the complaint). He says the Council abused its processes by substituting a legal document without proper notification.
29. Mr X says the Council covertly switched the first published TMO with a second, updated TMO. He says, in effect, the updated TMO was a new document and should have been issued as a new TMO.
30. I do not agree. I find that the Council published the TMO in line with the regulations. As I have said above, I do not find that this was a new TMO which should therefore have been published as a new TMO. I find that the updated version simply added the missing statement of reasons which, as I have said above, is not fault.
31. Further, I do not agree that the Council covertly switched documents. The Council is entitled to make amendments to correct administrative errors when it finds them. This was the appropriate thing to do. There were no changes to the TMO notice or other documents, only the addition of the statement of reasons.
32. The only change to the TMO was the addition of the missing statement of reasons. I therefore find that there was no statutory duty or obligation to notify the public of this amendment. The fact that the Council published it on its website is satisfactory notification in itself. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and I do not find fault with the Council. For this reason, I do not uphold Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman