The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic restrictions in Mr X’s area through the creation of a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the introduction of new traffic regulations in the area where he lives. He says the statutory consultation was inadequate and that the scheme will produce no benefits and may reduce road safety.
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)
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
Mr X says the Council failed to properly consult with the public and public authorities when it decided to introduce traffic regulations affecting parking and other highway use in his area. He objected to the formal consultation but the Council finally approved the making of the order in February 2024.
Councils as highway authorities are required to notify the public of proposals for introducing traffic orders under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Council carried out informal consultation in 2023 and the scheme was called in for scrutiny in October 2023. Mr X submitted objections to the committee at that time. The statutory consultation period ran from November to December for the required 21 days. The Council is required to consult with public bodies such as emergency services, bus operators etc in the period. We have obtained evidence from it that this took place.
Councils must also publish a notice of the proposals in the press. Any other consultation with the public is discretionary and for the highway authority to decide. In this case the Council also placed notices on lighting columns in the area and made the proposals available at the Council offices. There is no indication that Mr X and the local residents were unaware of the proposals and he and other residents submitted objections.
The Council is required to respond to the objections stating its reasons for progressing an order to the next stage but it does not have to withdraw it because the public oppose it. The decision-making powers lie with the highway authority and it can approve an order even if there is local opposition if it believes that the scheme will improve traffic management in the area as a whole.
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.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when deciding to introduce the Traffic Regulation Order.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic restrictions in Mr X’s area through the creation of a Traffic Regulation Order. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman