Kent County Council (21 004 050)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 13 Aug 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has progressed a proposal to reduce speed limits on roads near the complainant’s home. It is unlikely we would evidence of fault by the Council affected its decision to progress the scheme.

The complaint

  1. Mr B has complained the Council intends reducing speed limits on roads near his home. He says there is no statistical evidence to support the changes which a local Councillor proposed. Mr B also says the Council lost data he had submitted during consultations and this was not available to the decision makers who decided to go ahead with the changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I have also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. A local Councillor proposed introducing speed limits on some local roads. To achieve this, the Council intends making a traffic regulation order although it is yet to do so.
  2. Mr B believes the Council must base any change to speed limits on statistical evidence which he says does not exist. However, the Council has explained the proposed TRO is in response to local public health concerns and to reduce danger for people using the roads. It does not have to be based on statistical evidence.
  3. Mr B says he submitted data during the consultation. The Council was unable to locate this or explain what might have happened to it.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. While I recognise he disagrees with the Council’s intention to reduce speed limits, I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how it has pursued this. While we would not condone a loss of a consultation response, I do not consider the absence of Mr B’s response is likely to have affected the Council’s decision. The decision to progress the changes in speed limits was not based on statistical evidence.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings