Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the implementation of an Experimental Traffic Management Order. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr B has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the Council’s implementation of an Experimental Traffic Management Order. Mr B said the residents on his road were not consulted, and the Order has caused congestion and safety risks.
2. Mr B complained the Council wrongly issued Penalty Charge Notices.
3. Mr B complained the Council has not responded his Freedom of Information request.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B says the Council mishandled an Experimental Traffic Management Order. He says the Council did not consult him or other residents of the road. Mr B says the Order has caused congestion and safety issues.
8. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process before introducing the restrictions. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault.
9. Although councils do not need to carry out prior consultation before introducing an Experimental Traffic Management Order the Council published the notice on its website and in local newspapers. The Council has also provided a website link for Mr B to submit his comments so these can be considered.
10. Mr B complained that he was issued Penalty Charge Notices before receiving Warning Notices from the Council.
11. The Council accepted there had been a technical error in issuing the Penalty Charge Notices. However, I do not consider Mr B has suffered any significant injustice because of the Council’s error. It apologised, cancelled the Penalty Charge Notices and refunded any payments Mr B made.
12. Mr B says that he submitted a Freedom of Information request to understand how the Council decided to implement the Experimental Traffic Management Order. He says that the Council have not responded to this request.
13. I will not investigate this complaint because matters relating to Freedom of Information requests are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman