Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Traffic management


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Bristol City Council (21 010 445)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with parking issues near his home. We found that, while the Council properly processed changes to local parking restrictions, it failed to communicate clearly with Mr X. The Council's apologies to Mr X had already addressed the frustration caused by its poor communication.

  • Norfolk County Council (21 000 050)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 25-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr G complained about the Council's consultation for a traffic regulation order. He says there were several flaws in the Council's process. The effect was they were excluded from the consultation process and now have a bus stop opposite their home. He also complains the bus company used the stop as a terminus, contrary to the order, and the Council refused to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman's decision is there was no fault by the Council.

  • Sunderland City Council (21 001 404)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 28-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about dangerous and illegal parking outside a business on the road where he lives. Access to Mr X's home has often been blocked as a result. He said the Council failed to take effective action or come up with a resolution. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council's response to Mr X's complaints.

  • Devon County Council (21 002 229)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 04-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly respond to his reports about the condition of the road near to his home. We found there was no fault by the Council.

  • Transport for London (21 005 203)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London refused to give him a resident's discount on the Congestion Charge after it stopped accepting new applications. Transport for London was at fault for failing to consider whether Mr X's case was exceptional enough to warrant the discount. This caused Mr X unnecessary frustration. Transport for London has agreed to consider whether to exercise its discretion and give Mr X the discount. It will also remind its staff that its policies should allow for consideration of the individual circumstances of each case.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 000 222)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council does not enforce a Traffic Regulation Order where he lives. He also complained the Council allowed an event to go ahead in 2019 despite the disruption it causes. Mr B says the Council's actions have negatively affected his enjoyment of his home. We found fault with the Council for poor record keeping and delays in its complaint procedure. The Council remedied the injustice caused to Mr B by these faults during its complaint procedure. It will also make service improvements.

  • Leeds City Council (21 002 040)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to apply the Local Transport Plan policy and properly consider allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes when proposing a Traffic Regulation Order. Further Mr X said the Council delayed a trial allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes on a highway causing motorcyclists prolonged delays and inconvenience. The Council says it has acted in line with the recommendations of its Scrutiny Board and considered all relevant information when deciding to issue a Traffic Regulation Order. It says the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its resources caused unavoidable delay to the trial use of bus lanes. We found the Council acted without fault.

  • Leicester City Council (20 008 751)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 22-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address his concerns about a business parking cars on double yellow lines and completing car repairs on a public highway. Mr X says this business is blocking the road causing congestion which affects his daily commute to work causing frustration and upset. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

  • Devon County Council (21 001 085)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 11-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided not to reduce the speed limit or implement traffic calming measures on a road near his house. The Council was not at fault.

  • Devon County Council (21 000 675)

    Statement Not upheld Traffic management 01-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mrs M says the Council did not make the necessary investigations and enquiries before installing a zebra crossing outside a property she owns. She says this has caused her injustice because of increased pollution, a loss of privacy and potentially a loss of rental income and a reduction in the sale price. The Council was not at fault. The crossing was part of a scheme to reduce air pollution in the town. The Council collaborated with the district council and consulted the public before deciding on the plan. Mrs C's objections were considered by the committee which approved the scheme.