Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic enforcement cameras for a school street scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council introducing cameras to enforce a school street traffic regulation zone established in 2020. She says the cameras are a covert means of enforcing the scheme which has excessive restrictions and has resulted in residents incurring PCN penalties.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have considered the minutes of the meetings held by the Council’s Cabinet concerning the introduction of enforcement cameras.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says that the Council failed to consult properly with residents when it introduced camera enforcement of a school street scheme where she lives. She says the cameras are not painted yellow and operate at times which cause inconvenience for residents resulting in them incurring penalty notices.
7. The Council introduced the school street scheme in 2020 using the Traffic Management Order procedure under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Consultation was carried out with residents at the time. We will not consider any complaints about the introduction of the traffic orders because it was necessary for anyone to complain to us within 12 months of the orders being made.
8. In 2022 the Council’s Cabinet considered and approved the introduction of cameras to enforce the traffic orders because there was evidence of drivers failing to adhere to the restrictions within the traffic orders. There was no requirement for a new traffic order for introducing cameras as they are intended to enforce the existing restrictions and supplement signs and the previous enforcement officer activity on the site.
9. Ms X complained about the covert nature of the camera installations and says they shod be painted in yellow as a warning to motorists of the enforcement zone. Only speed enforcement cameras operated by the Police are required to be installed in a yellow housing. Enforcement cameras for traffic regulations do not have this requirement.
10. 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.
11. If any driver who receives a PCN penalty registered by the cameras wishes to challenge the validity they may appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals which is the body responsible for penalty challenges.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of traffic enforcement cameras for a school street scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman