Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council consulted over changes to traffic regulation order. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council did not carry out adequate consultation with residents about proposed changes to parking restrictions and uncontrolled crossings in its area when it made a traffic regulation order (TRO).
2. Mr X said the changes did not improve pedestrian safety and has caused him disruption, because he can no longer park outside his home. Mr X wants the Council to reverse some of the changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The procedures for creating a TRO are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. This requires the publication of a notice in a local newspaper. A council must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement.
7. Mr X wrote to the Council after it revised proposed alterations to a TRO affecting his road, meaning he would no longer be able to park outside his home.
8. The Council replied to Mr X and explained the process it had gone through, which included how it had advertised the proposals in a newspaper and carried out local consultation.
9. Having considered the legislative requirements and the Council’s response to Mr X, I cannot see evidence of fault that would justify an investigation. Unless a council specifically indicates otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to alter a TRO rest with the council.
10. Mr X wants the Council to reverse the changes including removing parking restrictions and it has declined. We could not direct the Council to do this in any event.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman