The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic restrictions and enforcement cameras on the street where Miss X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council introducing traffic enforcement cameras and access restrictions to the street where she lives. She says that has caused problems with deliveries and other visitors and she was issued with a penalty charge for accessing her home before she applied for a permit. She is also concern ed about breaches of her privacy rights caused by the cameras.
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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says the Council has introduced cameras and restriction son her street as part of a School Street scheme. She says the restrictions have impacts on deliveries and visitors for residents because the times for restrictions exclude visits in the that period. She says she received a penalty (PCN) before she applied for a permit for her vehicle.
Miss X complained to the Council and said that the cameras were an intrusion on her privacy and wants to have the cameras removed and the street enforced by enforcement officers.
The Council told Miss X that the scheme was introduced following an experimental traffic regulation order and a permanent one which was created after it. The consultation which included resident notification took place in November 2022 under the provisions of the Road Traffic regulation Act 1984. Miss X had an opportunity to make any objections to the scheme at the time and it is outside the 12-month period for receiving complaints about this matter now.
The Council told Miss X that traffic enforcement cameras meet the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice requirements and it carried out a CCTV Data Protection Impact Assessment and says the cameras can only monitor traffic and not private homes. The cameras are the same as those used by other authorities and use vehicle recognition technology in the times when the restrictions are operating.
Miss X wanted them to be replaced by enforcement officers on foot but the Council says this is impractical and is outside the powers which enforcement officers have under the regulations. The images are monitored by enforcement officers for the purposes of issuing penalties and anyone receiving a penalty can asl for copies of the images to support an appeal. The Council believes that no breaches of privacy are present from these or any similar cameras due to the limited coverage of the highway.
Miss X’s PCN was cancelled by the Council once she obtained a permit six months after the scheme was introduced. If she had applied for a permit earlier then she would not have received a penalty under the permit rules.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. In this case the followed the requirements of the legislation for introducing the traffic regulation order and it has operated it according to the order.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic restrictions and enforcement cameras on the street where Miss X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman