Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic regulation orders for new parking and traffic restrictions in Mr X’s area. The experimental orders were introduced in 2020, which is outside the 12-month period for accepting complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner and so we will not exercise discretion to investigate now. It is reasonable for Mr X to challenge the making of a permanent traffic order in the courts within six weeks of the notice of making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s introduction of experimental traffic orders in 2020 and its subsequent decisions over permanent traffic orders. He says the decisions did not give sufficient consideration to public feeling and that local councillors were not involved at a door to door level. He wants an independent body to be appointed to oversee the Council’s decisions on these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council introduced experimental traffic orders in his area in 2020 to restrict traffic in some streets and alter parking areas to encourage cycling and walking and reduce pollution. He says some of the three orders increased traffic by displacing it into other areas and caused inconvenience for residents.
8. The Council gave notice in the press about the experimental orders and met the requirements of the legislation for experimental orders. There was no requirement to consult with residents prior to this for experimental orders. During the six-month period of the orders residents were invited to comment on the schemes and submit any objections.
9. We will not exercise discretion to consider the period when the experimental orders were introduced in 2020 because it is outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
10. Mr X says there should have been more personal contact with residents from the Council and local councillors to seek their opinions. He says an online submission of comments was insufficient. The highway authority is not required to consult residents on an individual level under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is required to consider any objections to the introduction of a permanent traffic order although the final decision is for the authority to make.
11. Mr X feels that the Council’s process for deciding the orders in 2021 left no opportunity for resident’s views. The Council decided in late 2021 that one scheme which was recommended for permanent closure should be reversed and the road re-opened. Mr X felt residents’ views were overruled. However, the Council is the highway authority and it may decide whether or not an order should or should not be made permanent.
12. Anyone who believes the process for making the order permanent was flawed may appeal to the High Court within 6 weeks of the notice of making. It is reasonable for Mr X to challenge the procedure for any orders which are made permanent although this process was not complete when he complained to us.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate about the Council’s introduction of traffic regulation orders for new parking and traffic restrictions in Mr X’s area. The experimental orders were introduced in 2020, which is outside the 12-month period for accepting complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner and so we will not exercise discretion to investigate now. It is reasonable for Mr X to challenge the making of a permanent traffic order in the courts within six weeks of the notice of making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman