Summary: Mr R complains about the delay by the Council’s Monitoring Officer in responding to his complaint about its procedure for introducing a low traffic neighbourhood. The Ombudsman has ended our investigation. We uphold Mr R’s complaint. But the Council has taken action which has resolved the issue. No further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr R, is concerned about the process the Council followed in introducing a low traffic neighbourhood (LTN), near to where he lives.
2. Mr R complained to the Council’s Monitoring Officer that a single councillor made a decision to introduce an experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO) for the LTN. But the Council’s full Cabinet made the decision about a LTN in a different area.
3. Mr R complains about the Council’s Monitoring Officer’s delay in responding to that complaint. He says the injustice to him is the Council allowed illegal road changes to continue for longer than necessary. It also meant he might have missed a time limit for judicial review.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr R provided with his complaint, the Council’s constitution and spoke to Mr R. I sent my draft decision to Mr R and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. The Council has powers to issue traffic regulation orders. These allow councils to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the use of a road by vehicles and pedestrians. There are different types of orders including permanent, experimental, temporary, or those for special events. An experimental traffic order shall not remain in force for longer than 18 months. (section 9 (3) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)
7. Local authorities have a duty to designate an officer as a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. (Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989)

What happened

8. In 2021 the Council introduced an ETRO for a LTN near to Mr R’s home. Mr R complained, saying the Council’s Constitution said the decision should have been made by its full Cabinet, rather than a single cabinet member. The Council’s Monitoring Officer responded to advise her view was the decision taken for the scheme was both constitutionally and legally compliant.
9. In early 2022 the Council decided its full Cabinet should consider whether to make permanent a ETRO in a different part of the County. In February, Mr R complained to the Monitoring Officer that the Council should take the same approach for the ETRO near to his home.
10. Mr R followed up his email a few weeks later and again in April. In May he complained to the Ombudsman, as he had still not received a response.
11. Form May, the Council started a consultation exercise for the ETRO near to Mr R’s home. It also decided its Cabinet would consider, in early 2023, whether to make the Order permanent.
12. In June the Monitoring Officer responded to Mr R’s February complaint. The letter apologised for the delay. It set out the procedural grounds on which the Council decided to refer the matter to its Cabinet.

Analysis

13. Mr R disagrees with the process used for the scheme where he lives. But the Council has now decided it will ask its Cabinet to make the final decision. Mr R agrees with that approach. If Mr R wants to challenge the legality of the decisions, it is open to him to seek legal advice. Mr R also has the option to engage in the Council’s consultation about the scheme.
14. The Monitoring Officer did take too long to respond to Mr R’s complaint. But she has apologised. My view is that is a sufficient remedy. Mr R says the delay caused injustice. But those claimed injustices are speculative. My decision is it would not be a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have ended my investigation and uphold Mr R’s complaint. The Council has taken action which has resolved the issue. No further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman