Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council closing a road as part of a School Street traffic management scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to make the scheme permanent.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has betrayed local people by ignoring their objections to the closure of a road as part of a School Street scheme.
2. Mrs X says this is an abuse by an elected body, which results in a dangerous road layout, and longer travelling times and inconvenience for residents, visitors, delivery drivers and emergency services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We can 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)
6. But 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s final complaint response and minutes of the October and November 2023, Traffic Regulation Order Governing Body meetings.
• information about the School Street scheme on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 6 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the implementation of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) in mid-2022. I see no reasons why Mrs X would have been prevented from complaining to us sooner about this, so we will not investigate it now.
9. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, in late-2023, to make the road closure permanent. But 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, or ask whether an organisation could have done things better/differently. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to permanently implement this traffic management scheme. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• Once the ETRO came into force, there was a 6-month period of formal consultation, where people could submit their views on the scheme. After this, the highway authority could decide whether to make the scheme permanent, modify it based on feedback, or decide to abandon the scheme altogether.
• The Council has not received any objections to the ETRO from the emergency services.
• The Council sent letters to residents in June 2023, consulting on the permanent retention of the scheme.
• The Council says its staff and local councillors also undertook door-to-door visits on several occasions.
• The consultation on the ETRO, and its subsequent permanent retention, did not amount to a referendum; the decision ultimately rested with the Council.
• The Governing Body deferred making a decision on the permanent retention of the scheme, to allow for further analysis of the consultation responses.
• The Governing Body was presented with an analysis of, and responses to, the comments the Council had received for and against the ETRO scheme. It was entitled to decide the weight to be given to competing issues, and to proceed with making the TRO permanent, even if some residents disagree with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman