Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the consultation and implementation of a Traffic Management Order. This is because Mrs X has not suffered significant personal injustice. An investigation would also not achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not follow a clear and transparent process during the consultation stage for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Mrs X complains that the maps produced were not clear because the colours used did not match the consultation documents key. Mrs X says this did not give her a fair opportunity to challenge the TRO. Mrs X wants the Council to remove the TRO.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. TROs allow councils to introduce changes to traffic regulations. The principal law is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Councils will consult 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. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide clear consultation documents because the colour used on the maps did not match those used in the document key.
8. Mrs X complains the Council did not give her a fair opportunity to challenge the TRO.
9. The Council accepts the consultation documents produced may have caused confusion and apologised to Mrs X. The Council agreed to use a new map supplier to avoid creating similar confusion in the future. However, it says the confusion does not invalidate the consultation and the consultation was adequate and procedurally fair.
10. I do not consider any issues with the documents caused significant personal injustice to Mrs X to warrant investigation and she still had the opportunity to comment on the proposed restrictions.
11. Mrs X wants the TRO removed. This is not an outcome we could achieve even if we found fault in the TRO process. If Mrs X believes the Council did not properly follow the formal consultation process and the TRO should be quashed, she can apply to the High Court to challenge it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:

• any injustice to Mrs X is not significant enough to justify our involvement; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman