Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s complaint handling and the effectiveness of a Traffic Regulation Order. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation, the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about freedom of information and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling alone.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains:
• a temporary scheme the Council introduced using a Traffic Regulation Order (known as Low Traffic Neighbourhood and hereon referred to as LTN), was designed to cut pollution but has had the opposite effect.
• the Council has failed to explain whether the responses given to its consultation on the scheme were in favour of the scheme or not; and
• the Council refused to investigate his concerns about racial segregation in his area after a LTN was introduced.
2. Mr Y, who lives on a road which has been pedestrianised as part of the scheme, says he felt belittled by the Council’s response and that traffic and congestion is now worse in the area.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. 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

6. I considered the information Mr Y provided, information available on the Council’s website and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council introduced a series of Traffic Regulation Orders as part of a scheme aimed at reducing pollution in 2020, commonly referred to as LTN. As part of the scheme, Mr Y’s road was pedestrianised in October 2020.
8. Mr Y complained to the Council in July and August 2021. He said that since the road was pedestrianised, he felt he lived in an area of racial segregation and apartheid. He also complained the LTN was not reducing pollution.
9. The Council responded in August and September. It declined to investigate Mr Y’s complaint about racial diversity in the area as it did not find his comments to be appropriate. It said the current pedestrianisation of the road, and the scheme generally was under review as it had been experimental and said public consultation on the continuation of the scheme was shortly going to be started. It said Mr Y would be able to respond with his concerns as part of the public consultation for the Council to consider.
10. The Council’s further response in September answered a series of questions Mr Y had raised, including about how the Council intended to request local feedback. As part of its response the Council said it had carried out an online engagement exercise and would be considering comments received online and in email correspondence. It said this had already represented a range of views. Mr Y asked us to investigate in October.

Analysis

11. Mr Y says the LTN scheme is not reducing pollution. He says it has increased congestion, caused a lack of parking in the area, and has made pollution worse. While this may have caused Mr Y some frustration, this is not a significant injustice to Mr Y personally. Instead, this is his view on the effectiveness of the scheme generally. As there is not enough significant injustice to warrant our investigation, we will not investigate this complaint. Mr Y has the option to participate in the Council’s upcoming consultation about continuing the scheme, which is currently temporary, if he wishes these views to be further considered by the Council.
12. Mr Y has also complained about the lack of detail the Council gave about the responses it had received already to its online collection of views about the LTN scheme. Mr Y is entitled to make a freedom of information request to the Council is he wants further information about the responses received. It will then be for the Council to respond to the request for information. If Mr Y is unhappy with the response the Council provides, he can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to ask it to investigate the issue. As the ICO was specifically set up to consider such issues it is better placed than us to consider this complaint and so we will not investigate it.
13. Mr Y says the Council has refused to investigate his complaint that the introduction of a pedestrianised road had caused racial segregation. The Council said it would not investigate this complaint as it considered the comments Mr Y had made as inappropriate. Where we are not investigating the substantive part of the complaint, here in relation to the LTN, it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigation how The Council handled Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation, the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about freedom of information and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman