Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of a traffic regulation order. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court. There is also not enough evidence of Mr X suffering significant personal injustice that warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process when considering the implementation of a traffic regulation order (TRO), including not preparing and economic impact assessment.
2. He said this impacted his business and caused him significant uncertainty and confusion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We consider 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained the Council repeatedly missed its own timescales and failed to keep affected businesses informed.
10. If the Council implements the TRO, Mr X can challenge whether it complied with the correct process at court. Only the court can suspend or quash a TRO, therefore it would be reasonable for Mr X to use this remedy.
11. The Council does not have an obligation to conduct an economic impact assessment. It notes neither businesses nor residents have an automatic right to on street parking. It accepted an external party installed double yellow lines in error and addressed this issue.
12. It also confirmed to Mr X that objections to the TRO had been received, which it would address in the objections report.
13. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. That is the case here.
14. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It would not be proportionate to investigate the complaint handling if we are not investigating the substantive matter of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has a reasonable opportunity of obtaining a remedy by taking the matter to court, which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction. There is also not enough evidence of Mr X suffering significant personal injustice that warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman