Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a temporary traffic regulation order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council introducing a temporary traffic order which restricts the entrance access to her property for two days when a local event takes place. She says she will be inconvenienced and the Council failed to offer a suitable alternative route or to give her sufficient prior 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the Council gave her short notice about its intention to introduce a temporary traffic order for an event near her home which affects her access. She also says the event organisers failed to give her a leaflet about a residents’ meeting which it was holding about the event. She made objections to the Council about the proposed order but the Council made the order regardless of her concerns.
6. Temporary traffic regulation orders have a minimal requirement for public consultation as the formal notice is restricted to statutory undertakers such as emergency services, local authorities and transport operators. Ms X was aware of the proposed order because she made an objection and the Council replied before the order came into force. There is no right of objection for the public for a temporary order but the Council acknowledged her concerns and it had suggested alternatives which she was not satisfied with.
7. 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.
8. The Council has provided copies of the different stages of the order proposal including the notification in the local press which is a requirement. There is no evidence that the council failed to follow the traffic order procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a temporary traffic regulation order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman