Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a temporary Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to revoke an experimental traffic scheme. He says the decision was taken by the Director of highways without giving consideration to a report which officers told residents would be submitted in favour of retaining the scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and I have considered the decision report on the Traffic Order.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council introduced a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order to restrict traffic flow in his area. In July 2021 the residents received a letter from the Council following consultation on the future of the scheme. The letter said that following consultation a report would be prepared recommending that the orders be made permanent Council’s Director responsible for highways.
6. The Director decided that the order should be revoked based on the response of the residents, councillors and officer investigations. Mr X complained because he believed that the report to which the July letter referred was not considered by the Director and no reference was made to it in the website documents on the decision.
7. The Council advised Mr X that the letter was badly worded by a highways officer and that the proper consultation decision was included on the website. There was no other report from officers. The comments of officers on the consultation were included in an appendix with other findings and this did not advise that the order should be made permanent.
8. I have read all the documents provided to the director and I have considered the procedure by which decisions are made on Traffic Regulation Orders. I have concluded that the letter sent to residents was misleading and inappropriate but that it did not form part of the decision process. It would have been inappropriate for officers to advise the residents of the outcome before the Director had an opportunity to evaluate the evidence himself and make a decision.
9. It is unlikely that any separate officers’ report exists as the process has a format of appendices for this part of the consideration and any officer views or comments would be included in this rather than a separate report.
10. I do not consider that the letter has caused any significant injustice to Mr X because it was simply an inaccurate view of the process and does not reflect what took place, which was a standard procedure for deciding a Traffic Order.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on a temporary Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused any significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman