Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of a 20mph speed limit zone as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. Additionally, there is insufficient personal injustice caused to the complainant to justify our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow its own published procedure for the implementation of a 20mph speed limit zone, carried out superficial consultation and implemented an outcome that was not requested by residents. Mr X considers the scheme to be a significant waste of council tax revenue. Mr X wants the Council to rescind the decision and carry out further consultation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. We do not start or continue 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have considered the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

6. Mr X complains that a proposal for a 20mph speed limit zone in his area did not meet the criteria to be considered by the Council, under its own published procedure, in that he says it was not correctly submitted and did not have the written support of two ward councillors. Mr X complains the Council carried out a flawed consultation exercise as he says he and other residents did not receive copies of a local newspaper in which proposals were advertised, and that the Council implemented the scheme across an entire estate rather than just roads adjacent to schools.
7. In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council acknowledged that when it considered the initial, more limited proposal for a 20mph zone, it decided the better option was to include Mr X’s entire estate. The Council said the petition submitted highlighted safety concerns and it was for this reason it was considered. The Council set out how it had advertised the proposals including printing a public notice in the local newspaper, adding that it had no control over the distribution of it. The Council confirmed parish and ward councillors were made aware of the proposals and that it had received no objections from the latter.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Under section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local highway authorities have the power to vary the speed limits on the roads they control. While the Council does have a published procedure for residents to request 20mph speed limits, it ultimately has the power to introduce such measures itself. If the Council did vary therefore from its published procedure, it is unlikely we would find this to be fault, given the powers it has in this regard.
9. Before making a traffic regulation order to vary speed limits, under the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, a highway authority must publish at least once a notice containing the particulars of the proposal in a newspaper circulating in the area to which the order relates. The Council says it published the notice in the only local newspaper. That Mr X says the newspaper is not directly distributed to his home does not in my view equate to the Council being at fault in this regard.
10. Finally, while I recognise Mr X remains unhappy about how this matter was handled, he has not described any loss or harm arising to him from his complaint to a degree that would warrant our further involvement. Mr X complains the scheme is a waste of council tax revenue, but this impacts all or most of the people living in the Council’s area and does not provide a basis for us to investigate.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman