Summary: Ms X complained about a Traffic Regulation Order and how the Council enforces this. Ms X said this puts her at a disadvantage as a disabled person. We do not find fault with how the Council responded to Ms X’s concerns about how it enforces the Traffic Regulation Order.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that prevents her from easily accessing her home by car. Ms X complains the Council uses metal barriers to close the road during the hours of operation which make it inaccessible for residents who are exempt from restrictions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot investigate complaints about events that took place more than 12 months before a complainant contacted the Ombudsman. We can only exercise discretion to look back further if there are good reasons to do so.
7. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2024, meaning anything that happened before March 2023, including the decision to make the TRO and the decision on how to enforce it, is a late complaint and I have seen no good reason to look further back. For this reason, I have investigated Ms X’s complaint from March 2023 up until the point she brought it to the Ombudsman in March 2024. Any reference below to events that took place before or after these dates are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered information she provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Equality Act 2010

10. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010, which includes disability. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The Public Sector Equality Duty

12. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

13. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

14. Ms X is disabled and holds a blue badge. The road Ms X uses to access her home is subject to a TRO that restricts vehicular access at certain times. The TRO includes various exemptions, including for people like Ms X who need to use the road to access their property and those who hold a blue badge.
15. The Council originally relied on traffic signs and metal barriers to enforce the TRO, with drivers of exempt vehicles expected to move the barriers to pass, then replace them. The implementation of the TRO and the decision to use metal barriers to enforce it pre-dates the start point of my investigation.
16. In December 2023, the Council received reports of non-compliance with the TRO. In response to this, it then also began using automatic number plate recognition camera technology to issue penalty charge notices (PCN).
17. In February 2024, Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X said she was entitled to use the road to access her home but had received a PCN for driving on it during the restricted times. Ms X explained she was a disabled blue badge holder and did not feel the signage on the road accurately highlighted that this meant she was exempt from the restrictions. Ms X also explained she did not believe the Council should use metal barriers as a means of enforcement. Ms X said she was unable to easily move these and often had to park some distance away from her home and walk back. Ms X said she felt this practice discriminated against her as a disabled person and should be stopped.
18. The Council responded to Ms X that month. It agreed she should not have received a PCN and had arranged for this to be cancelled. The Council also agreed the signage around the TRO exemptions was confusing and agreed it would consult on changes to this. The Council explained the metal barriers were used during the hours of restriction to remind drivers the road was closed to most vehicles and this had been in place for a number of years. However, it explained it was planning to bring alternative measures in to take disabled drivers fully into consideration.
19. Ms X responded to disagree with the Council. Ms X said the way the Council issued PCNs meant she may find herself having to contest a PCN every time she accessed the road, despite being exempt from restrictions. Ms X said it was intimidating to access the road in any case due to large crowds of pedestrians encouraged by the restrictions. Ms X reiterated that the metal barriers were not easy to move, particularly for a disabled person and said these should be attended by a warden who could move them when necessary. Ms X said the Council should remove all restrictions until it had resolved these issues.
20. The Council responded to Ms X in March 2024. The Council reiterated it intended to amend its signage to be clearer about the restrictions and who was exempt from these. The Council said any changes would be subject to public consultation and it had instructed officers to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment before advertising any proposed changes.
21. Ms X responded to explain she did not believe the Council had fully addressed the impact to disabled drivers. She said she felt the PCN system was flawed and meant the potential for daily PCNs for regular exempt road users. Ms X also reiterated that the metal barriers posed a real difficulty for disabled road users, and possibly able-bodied drivers too, which made the road inaccessible even for those who were exempt from the restrictions.
22. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2024.
23. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained it is considering the positioning of the barriers Ms X has complained about. The Council has also been carrying out a consultation on changes to vehicular access to the area under the TRO, which has been open to public consultation.

Analysis

24. Where a TRO is in force, it is up to the Council to decide which measures to put in place to enforce it. I could not find the Council at fault simply because Ms X disagrees with any specific method of enforcement.
25. It is necessary for decision-makers to understand the potential impact of their decision on people with different protected characteristics and to identify potential mitigating steps to reduce or remove adverse impacts. This should help to ensure policies are fully effective for different groups of people. The equality duty does not set out a particular process for assessing impact on equality that public authorities are expected to follow. Having due regard to the aims of the general equality duty is about informed decision-making, not about carrying out a particular process or producing particular documents. However, public authorities should be able to show they have assessed the impact of a policy or decision on groups with protected characteristics.
26. Where we receive a complaint that an individual with protected characteristics has been unfairly disadvantaged by the introduction or revision to a council’s policy, we will consider whether the council had regard to the public sector equality duty as part of its decision making.
27. The Council’s original decision to use metal barriers to enforce the TRO predates the start point of my investigation and I have not made any findings on this. However, Ms X contacted the Council in February 2024 to explain the barriers made the road inaccessible to her as a disabled person. At this point, the Council was under a duty to review how the barriers complied with its public sector equality duty.
28. The Council promptly engaged with Ms X and began a period of public consultation, as well as asking an officer to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment to determine if it was operating withing its public sector equality duty. I find no fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
29. The Council had not finalised its consultation or decision-making within the timeframe that I have investigated. If Ms X is unhappy once the Council has made its decision, she would be free to raise a new complaint about this and events that took place after March 2024 for us to consider further.
30. The Council has accepted it was at fault for issuing Ms X with a PCN. However, it quickly cancelled this when Ms X contacted it and I find this is a suitable remedy to the injustice caused. Ms X has said the current enforcement methods could mean she receives daily PCNs that she has to contest. However, in the period of time I have investigated, she has only received one and I cannot make recommendations to remedy potential future fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I find no fault with how the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint about how it enforces the TRO. I find the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused by the fault when it issued Ms X a PCN. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman