The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council made a traffic regulation order reducing the speed limit on a section of road. Mr X had a legal remedy at court which it was reasonable for him to use if he wished to challenge the order.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council, in July 2020, introduced a traffic regulation order (TRO) to reduce the speed limit on a one-mile section of road. Mr X says the Council failed to consult properly and the police did not support the change as it has claimed. He says the Council’s decision is unlawful being contrary to policy and is not evidence based. He says the road changes could confuse drivers and increase danger because there is a conflict between the signs, the speed limits, and the road markings. Mr X wants the Council to remove the TRO and restore the national speed limit. He says it should surcharge the officers and members with the cost of the scheme which is a waste of money in a time of high borrowing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The Council has provided evidence of its traffic regulation order (TRO) consultation, publicity, and complaint correspondence.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because there was a right of appeal to a court (see paragraph 2 and 3 above). The law provides an appeal to the High Court within 6 weeks of the making of a TPO if a person wants to challenge the validity of the order on the ground the Council has: A) not acted within relevant powers or B) failed to comply with relevant requirements (Traffic Regulation Order Act 1984, schedule 9).
The Council fulfilled its responsibility to inform members of the public, including Mr X, of the right of appeal. The Council properly advertised the proposed changes and the making of the TRO. For example, notices on the road (photograph provided). On 7 July Mr X complained to the Council about the TRO, following two freedom of information applications. This was less than a week after the making of the TRO. The published TRO includes the right of appeal to the High Court.
I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal. The High Court would consider the Council’s duty (1984 Act, section 122) ‘to secure the expeditious, convenient, and save movement’ of traffic. It can consider whether the Council has considered relevant factors and balanced them when making its decision.
The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks which is the removal of the TRO. There is also insufficient evidence of the Council causing Mr X injustice.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council made a traffic regulation order reducing the speed limit on a section of road. Mr X had a legal remedy at court which it was reasonable for him to use if he wished to challenge the order.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman