Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consultation and process regarding a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to change a speed limit on part of a local road, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of to warrant investigation. We do not investigate council complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a street near a major road in the Council’s area. A town council requested the Council as the relevant highways authority to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reduce the speed limit on a stretch of the road. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly publicise the consultation on the proposed TRO to make it fair and transparent;
2. failed to notify him of the consultation period;
3. produced a report which failed to properly address his or other objectors’ concerns or provide proper grounds for the decision;
4. did not deal with his complaint through its complaint process.
2. Mr X says he feels ignored and frustrated as a resident who tried to engage in the process. He says he travels the stretch of road regularly so will be affected by the speed limit change. Mr X says the Council's process has eroded his trust in local decision-making. He says he spent time making his objections.
3. Mr X wants an investigation into the Council’s consultation process. If failings are found, he wants the Council to re-run the consultation properly and pause the speed reduction until it is completed. Mr X also wants a review of the Council's approach to notifying stakeholders of local changes and consultations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. TROs allow councils to introduce changes to traffic regulations, including speed limits. The principal law is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Councils will consultation the public on TROs, but unless the council says otherwise, a consultation is not a referendum on whether the new regulation will proceed. Councils are required to consider objections they receive, but the decision to make a TRO rests with the council.
7. Mr X considers the Council did not properly publicise the TRO, so not enough people were involved in or consulted on the matter. He considers this process was not fair or transparent. The Council’s report says it held a statutory consultation in 2024. It says it published the draft TRO notice in the local free press, sent letters to residents in the area affected by the TRO, and posted site notices on streetlights and telegraph poles in the town. The report and its appendices responded to the points made by objectors. Officers consider the Council’s process, including the consultation, complied with its statutory duties when dealing with the TRO.
8. Even if there has been fault by the Council in the TRO process which would have led to a different outcome, we will not investigate. The TRO introduced a reduced speed limit on part of a local road. While Mr X uses the road, he is no more impacted by the TRO decision than any other driver. That practical impact on Mr X of the TRO is that he has to reduce his speed slightly to remain compliant with the new limit. That is an insufficiently significant injustice to him to warrant us investigating. Mr X’s feelings of loss of trust, frustration and being ignored are understandable as the TRO outcome was not the one he favoured, but these do not amount to significant injustice. We recognise Mr X has spent some time to be involved in the TRO but it was his decision to do so.
9. Mr X says he lodged an objection to the TRO and asked the Council to tell him when the consultation period started, but it did not. There is no duty on a council to individually notify someone of a consultation where they have previously expressed an interest in the matter consulted on. If the Council agreed to notify Mr X here but did not do so, this would have been an error. But Mr X’s documents indicate he became aware of the consultation period before it ended. He could have re‑sent his objections, which he had already put before the Council, as part of the consultation process. Even if there was an error by the Council here, it did not cause such injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating. Neither this nor any of the other impacts of this matter on Mr X amount to such a significant injustice to justify us investigating, so we will not do so.
10. Mr X complains about the Council not dealing with his complaint through its own complaint process. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. We note the outcomes Mr X wants from his complaint in paragraph three. We could not achieve the outcomes Mr X wants even if we found fault in the TRO process. We cannot order councils to re-run consultations or entire TRO processes. The requirements for notifications during a TRO are set down in national legislation. We cannot order councils to adopt notification processes additional to the requirements set down in law. That we cannot achieve these outcomes Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused to Mr X by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman