Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled three traffic management schemes in the local area. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the traffic management schemes. But it was at fault for its delay in dealing with and responding to Mr X’s complaint. This caused Mr X frustration and time and trouble chasing it for updates and making a further complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled three traffic management schemes (Roads A, B and C) in his local area. In particular, Mr X alleged the Council:

• failed to conduct adequate consultation
• ignored strong residents’ opposition
• used inadequate data to make its decisions
• failed to provide robust data to show the benefits of the individual schemes to residents.

2. Mr X said the Council’s failings led to increased travel times and pollution due to the rise in traffic on the local streets which caused inconvenience to him and other residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
8. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2020. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.
9. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic Regulation Order

10. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) can be used by a council to restrict or stop the use of the road network. They aim to improve road safety and access to facilities. TROs are issued in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the procedures are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996.
11. TROs allow councils to introduce and enforce parking restrictions within their area. The process for creating a TRO is set out in regulations. In summary, a council must:

• consult with various bodies
• publicise the proposal
• consider any objections received before making the Order; and
• notify anyone who objected to the outcome, including the reasons for the council’s decision.

Experimental TRO

12. Under Regulation 22 of the 1996 Regulations councils may make Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders. Councils can use these orders where they are considering making a temporary TRO permanent.
13. The law does not require Councils to consult or reconsider if it received objections to the experimental TRO.

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government issued new statutory guidance in May 2020 which required councils to make changes to their transport networks ‘as swiftly as possible’. This was to ensure transport networks were urgently adapted to provide sufficient space for social distancing and to support walking and cycling before restrictions eased.
16. In response to the statutory government guidance, the Council launched its transport management programme in May 2020. The programme was also set up to bring about the Council’s overarching objectives of a safer, greener, healthier neighbourhood that prioritised the movement of people and to reduce through traffic on local roads. The Council’s programme covered several neighbourhoods within its borough, which included Roads A, B and C.
17. For the Council to adapt its transport network in accordance with, and due to the urgent nature of the government COVID-19 guidance, the Council introduced its traffic management measures via Experimental and Temporary Traffic Orders. With the Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETRO), the Council conducted consultations at the same time the traffic management measures were trialled.
18. In May and June 2020, the Council conducted virtual public engagements and consultations via media release, its online platform and its magazine. It invited comments and feedback from residents and businesses on the trial measures.
19. The Council considered the results of the May/June 2020 public engagement at committee in October 2020. The Council acknowledged the disparity of opinions and objections raised about the trial measures. And, in view of the different ETRO consultation approach it undertook, the Council requested an interim and final reviews be conducted by an independent consultant. This was to analyse its transport management schemes, data gathered, and feedback received from consultations so decisions could be made to either remove the trial measures or make them permanent.
20. In December 2020 and January 2021, the Council conducted further virtual live public engagement events. The events were publicised using local media, residents’ newsletters, chamber of commerce and other social media platforms.
21. In May 2021, an independent consultant conducted a review of the transport management schemes the Council had implemented so far. This included reviews of the ETRO consultation feedback, transport analysis, air quality analysis and the equalities impact assessment. The independent consultant acknowledged the objections raised from feedback and the desire for the schemes to be removed. It found the impact of air quality within the borough was negligible. The consultant said it was difficult to draw firm conclusions but found it was reasonable to conclude there was a limited traffic displacement effect. It also found there was evidence the overall traffic volumes on alternative routes remained lower than pre-COVID. For these reasons, the consultant recommended a final review of the schemes be conducted with further data collected via continuous stakeholder engagement about traffic movements.
22. In August 2021, the Council conducted another set of virtual public engagement events with stakeholders including residents. On 27 August 2021, the Chief Officer approved the ETROs be made permanent through the implementation of permanent TROs. This was because findings showed overall traffic indicated a significant reduction of traffic volumes across most of the schemes. The decision was challenged by the sub-committee. In October 2021, a final review was conducted, and the Cabinet agreed for the ETROs to be made permanent. This was to support the Council’s transport policies and strategies.
23. The ETROs for Roads A, B and C were made permanent TROs.
24. On 3 February 2022, Mr X complained to the Council about how it dealt with the ETROs for Roads A, B and C. When Mr X did not get a response from the Council, he made the same complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2022. In particular, Mr X pointed out the ETRO for Road A had become obsolete especially when other ETROs in the borough had been made permanent. Mr X said Road A traffic management measure negatively affected the residents with increased traffic and pollution. He asked the Council to engage residents, recognise feedback, conduct further analysis now that other ETROs have been made permanent and to remove the traffic measures on Road A. The Ombudsman contacted the Council about Mr X’s complaint, and it confirmed it had not dealt with the complaint he submitted to it in February 2022.
25. The Council issued its stages 1 and 2 responses to Mr X’s complaint on 18 May 2022 and 22 June 2022 respectively. The Council explained:

• why it did not conduct a full consultation before the ETROs were introduced and acknowledged the inconvenience the different consultation approach it took might have caused
• it conducted consultations alongside the ETROs, invited and received a high number of responses from residents and other stakeholders
• sufficient and high reliable data was collected
• an independent consultation analysis of feedback received with the traffic analysis report was done
• a final review was conducted by the Cabinet before it decided to make the ETROs permanent.

26. The Council said it acknowledged there was strong objection to the ETROs and the impact on Road A residents. But it said all feedback received and data collected were considered. The Council explained although it implemented separate trial measures for several roads, it said all the measures mutually complemented each other to significantly reduce through traffic across the borough. For example, it said Roads B and C were complementary to Road A and were not alternatives. The Council maintained the TROs supported its long-term transport goals and to reduce through traffic on local roads. It apologised for its late response in dealing with Mr X’s complaint, but it did not uphold his complaint.
27. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman again and complained the Council failed to address any of the concerns he complained about.

Analysis

28. Mr X complained about the procedure the Council took when it introduced ETROs for Roads A, B and C and its decision to make them permanent TROs.
29. While I note the Council did not carry out prior consultations before introducing the ETROs in May 2020, I do not consider this amounted to fault. This is because the Council conducted its consultation alongside the ETROs in response to the government’s statutory COVID-19 pandemic guidance which required urgent implementation at the time. The Council also conducted its consultations over a period of approximately one year via different channels.
30. Records show the Council acknowledged and considered stakeholders’ differing opinions, objections and the desire to remove the trial measures which was evidenced in its consultation analysis report. Also, it provided traffic analysis and air quality analysis reports which were made available on its website.
31. The Council is the highway authority, and it has powers to introduce TROs through the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and it is expected to consider any feedback it receives. TROs are often controversial in the areas where they are implemented and may be unpopular with residents. However, the decision whether to maintain, remove or make TROs permanent is for the Council to decide. If it believes the changes in the ETROs imposed by the order are for the greater benefit of traffic management, then it may confirm the order.
32. In this case, I cannot question the monitoring or data on which the Council based its traffic and air analysis reports. These reports were completed by specialists and analysed by an independent consultant and approved by the Cabinet before the ETROs for Roads A, B and C were made permanent TROs. Furthermore, Mr X complained specifically that Road A’s traffic measure has now been made obsolete after Roads B and C ETROs were made permanent. The Council introduced ETROs for several roads within its borough which were subsequently made permanent. The Council explained that the several schemes complemented each other to ensure through traffic was removed from the neighbourhoods within its borough in line with its transport policy. For instance, it confirmed Roads B and C schemes are complementary to Road A. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s view where there is no evidence of procedural fault.
33. 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 how much a complainant disagrees with the decision. I find no fault by the Council with the TRO procedure it undertook.
34. As regards the Council’s complaint handling process, the Council was at fault for its delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. Mr X complained to the Council on 3 February 2022, but it did not issue its stage 1 response to him until 18 May 2022. This was after the Ombudsman contacted the Council following Mr X’s complaint to it as he had not received a response from the Council. This was a 12-week delay, and it was fault. It caused Mr X frustration and time and trouble chasing for updates and making a further complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and pay him £100 for its delay in dealing with and responding to his complaint
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of dealing with residents’ complaints in a timely manner and in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure. Explain to the Ombudsman how the Council will monitor performance against timescales.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman