Traffic management


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Slough Borough Council (17 000 369)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 25-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the extent of the Council's parking enforcement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (16 019 371)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the introduction of a speed restriction in his village. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part which has caused injustice to Mr X.

  • Transport for London (16 018 979)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the authority's enforcement of a parking penalty which he says he appealed. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is reasonable for Mr X to submit a witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (16 019 413)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: The complainants are unhappy with how the Council changed their disabled parking bay when it introduced an estate parking scheme. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint as it concerns a social housing issue and so is out of his jurisdiction.

  • London Borough of Merton (16 018 372)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr P complains about the Council's consultation introducing a controlled parking zone. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr P's complaint as he has not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision making to be able to criticise the merit of the decision it made.

  • Cornwall Council (16 015 307)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: the Council was not at fault for how it dealt with safety issues on traffic calming measures. The Council failed to respond to some of Mr B's queries. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Enfield (16 018 065)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 11-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr U complains the Council cannot justify its increase in controlled zone parking permits by reference to its accounts. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he does not see what more he could add to the information the Council has supplied.

  • Plymouth City Council (16 018 501)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 10-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council has refused his application for a parking permit. We will not investigate as there is no indication of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (16 016 942)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Traffic management 07-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of a controlled parking zone. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault and the complainant could have sought a remedy in court.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (16 009 187)

    Statement Upheld Traffic management 07-Apr-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided to implement a speed hump scheme in Mr X's village. Its delay responding to his complaint was fault. It has apologised for this delay.

;