The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make a Traffic Regulation Order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council wrongly made a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) introducing new parking controls near to his address. He wants the Council to remove these parking controls.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council announced its proposal to make a TRO order that included parking controls on Mr X’s road. It carried out a public consultation on its proposal and Mr X responded. The Council considered all the consultation responses and decided to go ahead with making the TRO.
We are 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.
I recognise that Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision. However, the Council followed the correct procedure for making the TRO. We cannot question the Council’s judgement that the TRO is necessary.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman