Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a local traffic issue. This is because there was no requirement for the Council to consult the residents’ association about the experimental traffic order and we cannot yet say whether any fault by the Council in the way it is currently discussing the matter with residents has affected the permanent outcome for them.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained on behalf of a residents’ association about the way the Council dealt with his complaint about a councillor and a major local traffic issue. He told us there are now more traffic, pollution and access problems in the residents’ association area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s responses to his complaint and information on the Council’s website about the traffic scheme. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B has complained about the actions of a local councillor because he believes this councillor is responsible for implementation of the traffic, congestion and pollution reduction scheme affecting his area. Mr B said the Council has deliberately and consistently failed to consult properly with his residents’ association. He told us the Council has failed to address the adverse consequences of the scheme. Mr B said the Council has ignored requests to abandon the scheme or to hold it in abeyance until it can introduce an improved scheme. He has criticised the way the Council is engaging with residents about the scheme. He said the Council’s on-line meetings with residents have been unproductive, inconclusive and improperly constituted.
6. To put things right Mr B is seeking an independent investigation of his complaint, lifting of the current scheme, and the Council’s acknowledgement it should have consulted his residents’ association in any and all consultations affecting its area, roads and members.
7. To make a permanent traffic order, councils must follow a legal process. Councils can make an experimental traffic order using powers under sections 9 and 10 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
8. The law does not require councils to consult before making an experimental traffic order. The purpose of such orders is to assess how a scheme will work before a council decides whether to make it permanent. The experimental traffic order gives councils an opportunity to trial changes and then to see what people think once they are operational but before they become permanent.
9. An experimental traffic order can only be in force for 18 months. If a council wishes to make it permanent, it must make a new order.
10. We cannot say the Council was at fault in failing to consult the residents’ association about the experimental traffic order because there was no requirement to do so. There is no requirement on the Council to stop an experimental scheme once it receives objections to it. But it must consider objections before deciding whether to make the scheme permanent. There is a legal process it must follow at that stage.
11. Part of Mr B’s complaint is about the way the Council is currently consulting with residents. In its final response to his complaint, the Council said it is continuing to seek feedback on the scheme, as well as collating traffic data to assess the impact of the scheme to inform how it may develop in the future. This is not a formal consultation process. The Council said it will publish a monitoring report on the scheme following the elections in May 2021. So, we cannot yet say whether any fault by the Council in the way it is currently engaging with residents has affected the permanent outcome for them. It would not be appropriate for us to start an investigation before the Council has decided whether to propose to make the scheme permanent. It will need to follow a legal process before reaching a final decision on a permanent scheme. That will give the residents’ association and individual residents a formal opportunity to make their objections to the Council if they wish to do so.
12. We would normally expect councils to comply with their own complaint procedures and we may investigate complaints about their complaint handling when we are investigating the matter which gave rise to the complaint. The Council’s final complaint response explains why it did not uphold Mr B’s complaint. The Council’s delays in responding to the complaint are not, of themselves the cause of significant enough injustice to the residents’ association members to justify us investigating this issue. The Council’s complaint handling is not the primary cause of the problems Mr B told us residents are experiencing.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there was no requirement for the Council to consult the residents’ association about the experimental traffic order and we cannot yet say whether any fault by the Council in the way it is currently discussing the matter with residents has affected the permanent outcome for them.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman