Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the approval of a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order for an event. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council approved a temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which closed the street she lives on for an event which lasted nine hours. She says the Council approved the event based on misleading information provided by the event organisers. Ms X is not happy with how the Council handled her complaint. She says the event caused her disruption through the noise generated and restricted her and other residents’ access to the street. Ms X wants the Council to issue an apology, provide compensation for the disruption caused and put measures in place to prevent future instances.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council the same event held the previous year caused disruption to residents and they had only received 25 days’ notice of it happening.
6. The Council says it called an emergency meeting with the event organisers after receiving Ms X’s concerns. It says it discussed the issues she raised at that meeting and decided the organisers had addressed them. It then decided to approve the event. The Council also says it published a Notice of Intent in the local press and circulated it to all statutory consultees as part of the process to make a temporary TRO.
7. Ms X complained the street she lives on was closed for nine hours. The Council says it had to close the main road leading to the event. As Ms X’s street connects to this road at both ends, this also led to the closure of her street. The Council says the event organisers agreed to provide residents with access if needed. It also says it kept the road closed after the event ended to allow the safe removal of equipment, barriers and signage.
8. The Council did acknowledge some issues with the application for the temporary TRO. It said residents were not given the opportunity to object before the application was submitted. However, once the Council became aware of the issue it arranged the emergency meeting so concerns could be addressed. It also explained how it will avoid similar issues in the future. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this response.
9. Ms X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman