Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided not to make an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order permanent. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council reviewed an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) without consulting village residents. He says its decision was based on inaccurate data. Mr X also complains the Council refused to meet a resident group to discuss their concerns.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders can remain in place for a maximum period of 18 months and give six months, from the start of the ETRO, for people to comment. The Council will then decide whether to end, amend or make the scheme permanent.
6. The Council introduced an ETRO in the village where Mr X lives. The Council made it clear that if displacing Heavy Goods Vehicles out of Mr X’s village led to significant impacts elsewhere, then this would have to be assessed and the ETRO may not be made permanent.

7. The Council confirmed the responses to its consultation, including a petition from residents, were considered by the decision maker. It also confirmed it advised the local Town Council before the decision not to make the ETRO permanent was published.
8. Mr X says the information the Council based its decision on was based on inaccurate data. He wants the Council to re-evaluate the data and observations from the resident group using “mutually agreed expertise”.
9. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the accuracy of the disputed data. Our role is to consider the process the Council followed leading to the decision. The ETRO process does not require the Council to consult with the public on the responses it has received once the ETRO has expired. Nor is it required to discuss its findings with the community or hold an inquiry if it decides not to make the ETRO permanent.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council did not ignore the outcome of the consultation. Rather, it assessed the responses received before deciding not to make the ETRO permanent. The ETRO has now expired, and the Council cannot restart it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman