Recent statements in this category are shown below:
-
Transport for London (24 016 632)
Statement Upheld Traffic management 08-Dec-2025
Summary: Miss D complains TFL incorrectly changed the status of her vehicle to non ULEZ compliant and delayed responding to her complaint. There is fault in respect of complaint handling but no fault regarding the compliance issue. TFL has already offered a reasonable remedy to Miss D for the complaint handling.
-
Transport for London (25 006 861)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 05-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s refusal to refund Mr X’s payments for driving in the ultra-low emission zone since 2022. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London in making the charges. The Authority accepts it wrongly awarded Mr X an exemption from paying the charge, but this did not cause Mr X injustice.
-
Rother District Council (24 002 620)
Statement Upheld Traffic management 04-Dec-2025
Summary: Mr X complained about a Council parking notice. We found fault with the notice issued. The Council agreed to provide a suitable apology and waive the notice and amend the wording on future notices and associated documents and signage. The Council also agreed to complete a review of its current parking enforcement regime.
-
Suffolk County Council (25 009 340)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 04-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided not to make an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order permanent. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 010 244)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 01-Dec-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Clean Air Zone exemption for his new vehicle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
-
Bristol City Council (25 002 160)
Statement Upheld Traffic management 28-Nov-2025
Summary: There was fault by the Council because of poor communication. It has apologised for this and offered Mr X a symbolic payment which is an appropriate remedy. It has reconsidered Mr X’s application for a disabled parking bay and offered him an alternative location. Mr X does not like the Council’s alternative proposal and wants the bay to be in a different location and for there to be double yellow lines at the end. The Council has explained what Mr X needs to do to request double yellow lines. The Council has explained its reasons for refusing Mr X’s preferred option. So there is no fault in its decisions.
-
North East Mayoral Combined Authority (25 008 312)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 28-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the authority’s grant funding of several councils for use in improved traffic management schemes. There is insufficient evidence of any fault or significant injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (25 010 669)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 26-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about road signage the Council has installed. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Ms X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.
-
London Borough of Enfield (25 016 319)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 26-Nov-2025
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic signs leading up to a bus gate. This is because Mr X could reasonably have used his appeal right.
-
London Borough of Haringey (25 008 271)
Statement Upheld Traffic management 24-Nov-2025
Summary:Miss X applied to the Council for a disabled parking bay. The Council promised installation by February 2025 but delivered it four months late. Miss X says this caused her significant distress and financial hardship.