Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a traffic order for a one-way traffic system. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council introducing a one-way system on a street on her estate without sufficient consultation with residents. She says the estate as a whole should have been consulted and that the approved scheme is not satisfactory for most residents of the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X lives on an estate where the Council proposed the introduction of a one-way traffic system on a street in the area. She says the Council only wrote to 8 residents on the street affected and that it should have consulted with the whole estate as most residents will be affected by the changes. The Council posted site notices on the street and published the proposals in the press and on its website which she says is insufficient.
6. The Council introduced the change to the traffic regulations by way of a traffic management order (TMO) under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The legislation requires a highway authority to consult with statutory bodies such as emergency services and transport providers but only to notify residents by way of a press and site notice. A council may carry out further consultation if it believes it necessary but unless it is advertised as such, this is not a referendum.
7. The Council posted notices which gave residents an opportunity to object within 21 days. The regulations only require a highway authority to post notifications in the London Gazette and on the site itself and the Council did more than this minimum requirement. Whilst residents may submit objections, the final decision on a traffic order is for the council as highway authority decide. In this case the council decided to introduce the new traffic regulations in the interests of better traffic management overall.
8. If someone believes the TMO is invalid due to flawed procedure they may challenge the notice of making in the High Court within 6 weeks. The notice of making came into force on 24 February 2024.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case there is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the procedures set out in the legislation for the introduction of a traffic management order.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce a traffic order for a one-way traffic system. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman