Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation over a proposed Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s public consultation over a proposed traffic order on his estate. He says the Council presented two different plans to a residents’ forum and then chose a previously rejected scheme for progressing to formal consultation. He says the consultation was misleading and the proposals do not meet all the needs of residents.

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. Mr X believes the Council’s consultation on a proposed traffic order was flawed. The Council says it held an informal public meeting at which the scheme and other possible revisions were presented. It was made clear at the meeting that these were illustrative to promote the public’s response to the scheme. The feedback determined how the proposed order would progress. Formal consultation with the public and statutory bodies took place after this meeting.
6. Mr X says he is concerned about what is proposed and how it may affect some residents including those who may have disabled needs. The Council says the proposals included an Equality Impact Screening Assessment and it has sent a copy of this to us with the proposed scheme. The public, including Mr X, had an opportunity to comment and submit any objections to the scheme.
7. Consultation with the public on Traffic Regulation Orders is not a referendum and the highway authority must make the decision whether or not to progress an order regardless of the level of public opposition or approval. In this case the Council has not yet decided whether the order should be made and there is no evidence that the procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 has not been followed.
8. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consultation over a proposed 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