The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s objections to a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to engage in dialogue with him over his objections to the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order which affects his property. He says it did not allow him to discuss his appeal against the Order.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he submitted objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at a junction near his home which he believes will affect his property access and parking. The Council acknowledged his objections and told him it would pass them on to the officer concerned who would provide a response. Mr X says he did not receive any response until several days after the 28 day period for a response.
The Council has confirmed that the TRO procedure does not normally involve any dialogue with the public making comments and objections and it should have clarified this instead of indicating a response would be received. There is a fixed period for submitting objections in the procedure. The Council then considers them and decides if it will introduce the order. There is no requirement to notify residents individually or to engage in discussion and there is no appeal procedure under the legislation.
Mr X was able to submit his objections and it is clear that the Council considered them but they did not overrule its view that the new restrictions were required for traffic management and safety. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view but as highway authority it may decide to introduce an Order if it believes this will improve traffic management, regardless of local residents’ objections.
If Mr X considered the procedure for processing the order was flawed, he could have challenged the decision to approve it at the High Court within 6 weeks of the notice of making. He could only use this to challenge the process of the Order and not the merits of the Council’s decision to introduce it.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and if we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
In this case the Council could have made it clearer at an earlier stage that it would not discuss objections submitted. However, it did properly consider his objections and issued a response. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s objections to a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman