Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road controls. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Also, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to bring in yellow lines and other traffic restrictions to prevent problem parking and speeding. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
2. Mr Y says he has suffered inconvenience and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y contacted the Council in 2020 to complain about problem parking, speeding and dangerous driving in his area. Mr Y says he wrote to the Council a further three times, including in November 2020, when he complained further about the lack of response. Mr Y then contacted us in June 2021.
7. We asked the Council to respond to Mr Y’s complaint, which it then did in August. The Council’s response explained that to impose speed controls or yellow lines it would need to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). It said explained it had already set up yellow lines on the area’s busiest road.
8. It said it did not think yellow lines would be helpful on the other roads nearby as this would effectively reduce parking, and move the problem elsewhere. It said there would be several objections, making it hard to justify a TRO.
9. The Council said it could do a speed survey in the area to consider any future case for traffic calming measures. It offered to meet Mr Y to discuss his concerns which it did in September. Mr Y then asked us to investigate his complaint in December.

Analysis

10. The Council has considered Mr Y’s complaint about the issues in his area and explained why increased traffic measure are unsuitable. It has therefore properly considered Mr Y’s complaint. Consequently, there is not enough evidence to justify investigating this complaint.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s lack of response initially. As explained in paragraph four, as we are not investigating the substantive issue, we will not investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman