Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to engage with residents following the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the TRO. We cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X and his neighbours complains the Council failed to engage with residents following the introduction of changes to traffic on the road next to where he lives. He says:
• there have been several near miss incidents because of speeding drivers
• his garden wall has been damaged by driver
• resident’s driveways have been blocked and used for turning; and
• residents have been subject to verbal abuse

They want the Council to install traffic calming measures and improved parking signage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council made a Traffic Regulation Oder (TRO) covering the road adjacent to the one where Mr X and his neighbours live.
6. Mr X and some of his neighbours say this has caused traffic issues on their road with speeding, using drives for turning, blocking drives etc.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirms:
• The road where Mr X lives is a public highway and vehicles have the right to pass and repass.
• The layout of Mr X’s road has not changed.
• Drivers using Mr X’s road who choose to speed or drive without due care and attention is not directly linked to the removal of four parking spaces on the adjacent road.
• It has surveyed the traffic speed on Mr X;s road which shows an average of 13 mph northbound and 12.4mph southbound. Four cars exceeded the 20mph speed limit.
• Parking enforcement officers patrol the area; and
• It will arrange for the traffic signs on Mr X’s road to be moved closer to the adjacent road to improve visibility. This will be included as part of the next Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reduce costs.
8. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 under which traffic regulation orders are introduced does not require a highway authority to consult individual residents or to place site notices, this is at the authority’s discretion. I have seen no evidence to show the Council failed to follow the statutory requirements when making a TRO.
9. 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 whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. There is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the procedures under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 for introducing the traffic regulation order.
11. Also, in response to the concerns raised by Mr X and his neighbour’s the Council has visited the road and monitored traffic speeds. It has agreed to move the signs as part of the next TRO for the area and advised residents to contact the police if cars block their driveways. It has also advised Mr X to make a claim on the Council’s insurance if he believes the Council is liable for the damage to his garden wall.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen any evidence to show the Council failed to follow the statutory process when making a TRO. Also, we do not consider further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman