Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about restricted vehicular access to his property caused by a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and we could not achieve what Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about restricted vehicular access to his property and inconvenience caused by a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. He says the scheme only allows one access route to his property, increasing his journey times and causing inconvenience. He wants the Council to revise the scheme to allow him and other residents increased access to the neighbourhood.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council decided to implement the LTN scheme in Mr X’s area in 2021. We considered a complaint from Mr X about this decision in 2023. We will not investigate this as we cannot consider the same matters twice.
7. In is complaint response, the Council said since introducing the scheme, it had kept it under review. It said when had identified problems such as some roads experiencing increased traffic because of the restrictions, it had reviewed and amended the scheme. It said its view was that reasonable vehicle access to all properties had been maintained and at present, there was no plans to make further changes to the scheme.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately considered his complaint and explained why it will not make further changes. Although I accept the scheme causes Mr X some inconvenience, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered the matter to warrant an investigation. We could not require the Council to change the scheme or allow him increased access.
9. Mr X also states the scheme breaches his human rights. The Council said its position was that the scheme was in the general public interest and in the interest of public health and safety, so any inconvenience caused by the scheme was proportionate. It said all premises within the scheme remained accessible by motor vehicle, so the scheme maintained reasonable access.
10. We will not investigate this as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council appears to have had due regard to his human rights and has explained why it considers the scheme proportionate and acceptable. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman