Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order in the road where he lives. We have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s actions

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B complains the Council introduced a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on his road without consulting residents.
2. He says this has reduced the available on road parking and he must park his car further from his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the Mr B and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out the consultation required by a council before it can introduce a TRO. It must consult various bodies such as the emergency services and the parish council.
8. A TRO is a legal document, which allows the highway authority to regulate the speed, movement, and parking of vehicles.
9. The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 sets out the procedure for councils to follow when creating a TRO. Councils must publish at least one notice of the proposal in a local newspaper. Councils must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people affected, but this is not a requirement.
10. The Council consulted the statutory consultees in 2018 and 2019 about introducing school keep clear markings and a bus bay in the road where Mr B lives.
11. It says it published the proposed TRO in a local paper in October 2019. It also placed site notices outside the school gates and at the bus stop.
12. The Council did not receive any objections to the proposed changes to Mr B’s road and the TRO was approved in April 2020.
13. I appreciate Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman can only question a decision or process if it was carried out with fault. From the information I have seen here is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council introduced the TRO to Mr B’s road.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman