Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a ‘school street’ traffic restriction near where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to implement the restriction, or in the way it considered the complainant’s exemption permit applications.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a ‘school street’ traffic restriction located further along the road where she lives, and that the Council has refused to issue her with an exemption permit. Ms X says it is unreasonable to expect her to either use a longer route to access local services or to have to plan her day around when the restriction is not operating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposed to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7)), as amended, section 34(B))

3. In relation to the first bullet point above, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the ‘school street’ traffic restriction on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy about the traffic restriction which exists further along the road where she lives.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we do not make operational or policy decisions on the Council’s behalf. 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. 
7. I have seen no evidence of fault or errors in the way the Council decided to implement the traffic restriction, or in the way it decided Ms X was not eligible for an exemption permit. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate the complaint.
8. In responding to our enquiries, the Council identified that it had omitted to inform Ms X of when the traffic restriction is next due to be reviewed, and has offered to write to her with this information. It will also apologise for failing to signpost her to the Ombudsman at the end of its complaint process. This is a satisfactory way to address these issues, so the Ombudsman will not pursue them further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s substantive complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council implemented the traffic restriction or in the way it considered her exemption permit applications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman