Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic restrictions. This is because it is unlikely that we will find sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s decision to impose traffic restrictions has created congestion and air pollution.
2. Ms X says this has had a direct and serious impact on her health and ability to work. She wants the scheme to be reviewed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X says the Council failed to assess real-world traffic displacement, local infrastructure and economic impact when it decided to impose traffic restrictions.
8. The Council introduced the scheme as an experimental Traffic Regulation Order. Before deciding to make the restrictions permanent, it undertook extensive trials, monitoring and consultation processes. It adapted the final plan based on its findings. The Council says it will continue to monitor air quality and will adjust or introduce further interventions if required.
9. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the scheme was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
11. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process and properly considered the impact of the restrictions. As the Council properly considered the scheme, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we will find sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman