Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Experimental Traffic Management Order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council introduced an Experimental Traffic Management Order (ETMO) without following the correct processes. He says this has caused distress and anxiety. Mr X wants the Council to suspend the scheme and properly consult with 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

(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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or Traffic Management Order (TMO) are legal documents, which create a local traffic rule in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984). These rules could include reducing the speed vehicles can travel and where they can park.
7. Outside of London these legal documents are called TROs. Inside London they are called TMOs.
8. The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’) sets out the procedure for introducing a TRO or TMO. Authorities can also make temporary or experimental traffic management orders (ETMOs) to test plans for new parking schemes.
9. Mr X said the Council did not consult with residents on all the roads that are impacted by the ETMO. Unlike a permanent TRO, an ETMO does not require prior formal consultation because it is a trial of how a scheme may operate or be received. However, in this case the Council did still publicise the scheme by publishing it in a newspaper, on street signage and by providing information on its website. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
10. The experimental order is itself intended to act as a consultation exercise by trialling proposed measures which may later be made permanent. There is a six-month consultation period which allows objectors to comment on the scheme as it is in-situ. Any objections and feedback on the scheme will then be considered before a decision is made to either make it permanent or to discontinue it.
11. The Council explained to Mr X residents could submit comments during the six-month consultation period. It confirmed his complaint would be considered as an objection during its review.
12. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
13. Mr X raised concerns about hazards on the affected roads. The Council said it would refresh the road markings and assess whether existing markings should be extended. I am satisfied with the actions it proposes to take and further investigation would not achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman