The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about a Traffic Regulation Order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Also, if he believes the Council is withholding information from him, we consider it reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr D, complains the Council approved a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) introducing parking restrictions in his road . He says the Council ignored objections and failed to respond during the consultation period.
He also complains the report on what parking restrictions were required was not made public.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr D including the Council’s response to his complaint; information about the TRO available on the Council’s website; and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council made the TRO and implemented the parking restrictions. We cannot decide their lawfulness.
The process for making a TRO is not a referendum. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council failed to follow the correct procedure including publicising the proposed TRO and inviting comments. The report to the Council’s Cabinet meeting includes details of the objections received, including the petition from the residents of Mr D’s Road.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
I can see no evidence to suggest the correct procedure was not followed during the introduction of the Traffic Regulation Order.
Mr D says the Council is withholding a report. It is reasonable to expect him to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to investigate Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council implemented the TRO. And Mrs D can complain to the ICO if the Council is withholding information.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman