Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a no-right turn restriction near the complainant’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr x, says no-right turn restrictions in roads near his home mean that more traffic use his road. Mr X says this is dangerous. Mr X wants the Council to install a new restriction, at another junction, to reduce the amount of traffic using his road. Alternatively, Mr X says the Council should remove the existing restrictions.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says that no-right hand turn signs in nearby streets increase the volume of traffic in his street. Mr X says this is dangerous. Mr X also says some of his neighbours have reported the issue to the Council.
5. Mr X asked the Council to install a new restriction at another junction to reduce the volume of traffic in his road, or to remove the exiting restrictions.
6. The Council explained the existing restrictions were installed more than 50 years ago by way of a Traffic Management Order (TMO). They were introduced to stop drivers using residential areas as a shortcut; the Council said there had been problems before the restrictions were introduced. The Council explained that Mr X’s road was not included because its position meant it was less likely to be used as a short-cut. The Council said it would need evidence of overwhelming support from residents to change the restrictions. The Council said that only Mr X and one neighbour had expressed concerns; Mr X disputes this and says several neighbours have contacted the Council.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Councils should consider requests made by residents but are not required to agree to every request. The Council responded appropriately by explaining the background to the current restrictions and explaining it would need evidence of overwhelming support to change them in the way requested by Mr X. There is a slight discrepancy over the number of neighbours who have contacted the Council but a few neighbours expressing concern does not reflect overwhelming support.
8. To change the restrictions the Council would need to amend the TRO or make a new one; this is a long and expensive process. It would involve a period of formal consultation which would include all the residents who could be affected – it would not just include the views of the residents from Mr X’s street.
9. We are not an appeal body and we cannot tell a council to remove or instal traffic restrictions. These are decisions for the Council to make. Mr X, and other residents, could continue to make representations to the Council or to their local councillors. But, it would be for the Council to decide whether to make any changes.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman