Summary: Mr X complained the Council allowed road closures and roadworks to be carried out at both ends of the road where he lived at the same time. Mr X is a wheelchair user and had a disabled parking space at his address. He says the road closures and works undertaken prevented him from being able to use his car. Mr X says this caused him to miss medical appointments and negatively impacted his social life. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council allowed roadworks to be carried out at both ends of the road where he lived at the same time. He says the Council permitted road closures as part of the work undertaken on either side of his address. Mr X is disabled and a wheelchair user and had a disabled parking space at his address. He says the works undertaken prevented him from being able to use his car for about three or four months. Mr X says this caused him to miss medical appointments and negatively impacted his social life. He would like the Council to provide a financial remedy to recognise the disruption and distress caused.

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 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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. Mr X says he tried to make his complaint to the Council, but it did not make reasonable adjustments for him to provide the details of his complaint verbally. The Council says it has no record of a complaint from Mr X regarding this matter. I considered the comments from both parties and have exercised discretion to investigate this complaint dating back to 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
8. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
9. Mr X and the Council provided their comments on an initial draft of this decision. I considered their comments, made further enquiries, considered the additional information and issued an amended draft decision.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the amended draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory undertakers

11. Statutory undertakers are companies and bodies which have a general licence under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (the Act) to carry out certain development and works on the highway. These bodies include utility companies such as electric, gas and water companies.
12. The council/highways authority cannot prevent statutory undertakers from carrying out these works. The role of the council when statutory undertakers carry out works is to minimise disruption to the road network by co-ordinating roadworks where possible and ensuring public safety.
13. It is the responsibility of the statutory undertaker to present the council with a traffic management plan which takes into account the planned works. The Act says a council shall ‘use its best endeavours to coordinate the execution of works in the interests of safety and to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street’.

Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders

14. A Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) may place temporary restrictions on a road such as a closure, partial closure or the use of traffic lights to allow road works. Applications for a TTRO are made to the Council.
15. Any organisation or individual that is not a statutory undertaker must apply for a licence under section 50 of the Act from the relevant highway authority if it wants to:
• place, or retain apparatus in the street
• carry out any works required for, or incidental to, works such as breaking up or opening the street, any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or tunnelling or boring under the street
16. The Council’s website says its Network Management team co-ordinates and monitors the work of statutory undertakers and other parties whose work impacts the roads that the Council manages. The Network Management team also provides other services such as providing TTROs and section 50 licences.

The Public Sector Equality Duty

17. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) was created under the Equality Act 2010. The 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;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
18. Under the Equality Act, the following characteristics are protected, meaning it is against the law to discriminate against someone because of these characteristics:
• age
• gender reassignment
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or on maternity leave
• disability
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation
19. The broad purpose of the PSED is to integrate consideration of 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 delivery of services and for these issues to be kept under review. It is necessary for decision-makers to understand the potential impact of their decisions on people with different protected characteristics and to identify potential mitigating steps to reduce or remove adverse impacts.

What happened

20. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
21. Mr X is a wheelchair user and lived in a property with an off-road disabled parking space.
22. In 2022, a utility company began work to replace the gas supply pipeline in the area where Mr X lived. The work required digging up some of the roads in the area, which meant the utility company requested permission for some temporary road closures.
23. In January 2023, the utility company submitted traffic management proposals to the Council, providing details of proposed temporary road closures. The proposed road closures included the road where Mr X lived, Road A.
24. In March 2023, a third-party company, Company Z, submitted a planning application to the Council. The application requested permission to undertake works on a building structure located on Road A. The Council approved the planning application in May 2023.
25. That same month, the utility company submitted a temporary traffic order application to the Council. The application requested permission to temporarily close Road A at one end. The proposed closure of Road A was to the north of Mr X’s home address. The Council approved the TTRO application.
26. In August 2023, Company Z applied to the Council for a road closure on Road A, so it could carry out works to the drainage system.
27. The Council replied to Company Z. It said the utility company was carrying out works in the area, which included a closure in place on Road A. The Council suggested collaboration between Company Z and the utility company regarding the works to be carried out in Road A.
28. In late August 2023, Company Z asked the utility company to amend its TTRO. It asked the utility company to change its road closure at the north end of Road A to ‘access only’ and to move the road closure to the mid-section of Road A where Company Z had its proposed working area.
29. The Council emailed the utility company and Company Z and acknowledged Company Z’s request. The Council stated access to Road A would be maintained from the north end of the road whilst Company Z carried out its work.
30. In early September 2023, Company Z emailed the Council and the utility company. It asked for the road closure on Road A to be changed to ‘access only’ down to Company Z’s site entrance in the middle of Road A, for a period of five to ten days. Company Z said once it had completed its work, the utility company could move the closure back to the north end of Road A.
31. To support its request, Company Z submitted a temporary traffic order application to the Council. It also provided a traffic management plan showing the proposed road closure and area of works at the mid-section of the road for a period of 19 days. The Council approved the TTRO application.
32. As a result, there were two TTROs in place on Road A, one to the north of Mr X’s home address, and the other, to the south. This meant Mr X’s home address and parking space was placed between the two proposed temporary road closures.

What happened next

33. Mr X says in September 2023, the utility company moved its road closure at the north end of Road A to the mid-section of Road A, outside his address. Mr X says Company Z began its roadworks at this time, outside the entrance to his disabled car parking space. Mr X says for a period of about three weeks, he was unable to move his car from its parking space because Company Z’s roadworks blocked his access.
34. Mr X says following the three-week period, Company Z carried out some further works to the drainage on Road A. He says when Company Z completed its work, he was then able to move his car from his parking space. However, Mr X says by this time, the utility company had replaced its road closure at the north end of Road A, blocking the use of this route. Mr X says although there is a route to and from Road A to the south of his then address, this is via a narrow bridge which was too small for his car to fit through. Mr X says he was therefore unable to use his car from September to December 2023.

Analysis

35. Mr X says he tried to complain to the Council about the road closures and roadworks on Road A as he felt the Council had not considered the impact to him as a person with a disability.
36. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it has no record of a complaint from Mr X regarding this matter. I also acknowledge Mr X’s comments that the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for him to submit his complaint verbally. I have carefully considered both party’s comments and have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint.
37. The Council has provided copies of its records relating to the TTROs in question. The evidence demonstrates the Council considered the applications from the utility company and Company Z and approved the TTROs to enable them to carry out the works. The evidence also shows the utility company and Company Z communicated with local residents regarding the proposed road closures, and that the Council held regular meetings to review the traffic management and works programme.
38. The Council says it acted within its statutory responsibilities and took appropriate measures to ensure continued access to Road A. It says the two road closures did not block access to Road A at any time, and the overlap of the two TTROs was limited to a period of about two weeks. The Council says during this overlap, the primary closure installed by the utility company was suspended to ensure access for residents was maintained. The Council says after the two-week overlap, the utility company re-established its road closure at the north end of Road A, and a diversion route to access Road A was implemented again.
39. Mr X’s disabled parking space was situated off-road with access to it via a dropped kerb. Mr X says Company Z’s roadworks was situated in the road next to the dropped kerb; he says the roadworks and machinery used to carry out the roadworks blocked his access to and from his parking space.
40. I have reviewed the evidence provided by both parties. This includes the TTROs, and the traffic management plans submitted by the utility company and Company Z. The TTRO submitted by Company Z for its roadworks was for a period of 19 days in September 2023. I am satisfied that the utility company amended its TTRO for this period to allow access at the north end of Road A. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments that Company Z’s works was for a longer period, however, the TTROs do not reflect this.
41. Whilst I acknowledge the Council says Road A was accessible at its north end for the period of 19 days, Mr X says he was unable to use his car during this period because Company Z’s roadworks blocked access to his parking space. The traffic management plans submitted by the utility company and Company Z support this explanation as they show the works area on Road A to be outside Mr X’s address and parking space for this period.
42. The Council says once Company Z had completed its works, the utility company reinstated its road closure at the north end of Road A. It says access to Road A was maintained as a diversion was in place allowing access via the south end of Road A.
43. I acknowledge the Council’s comments, however, access to Road A via its south end necessitates a route under a narrow bridge. Mr X says he was unable to use this route because his car would not fit through the bridge.
44. Having reviewed the width of the bridge via online images, and the manufacturer’s dimensions of Mr X’s car, the evidence supports Mr X’s explanation; the width of the bridge is less than two metres, whereas the width of Mr X’s car is more than two metres.
45. I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it acted within its statutory responsibilities and took steps to ensure continued access to Road A. In addition, the evidence shows the Council did coordinate with the utility company and Company Z. The evidence also indicates the road closure at the north end of Road A was amended to access only for the duration of Company Z’s roadworks, and that a diversion was in place to access Road A from the south once Company Z’s works were completed.
46. However, I have seen no evidence the Council considered the potential impact to Mr X as a wheelchair user of the roadworks outside his disabled parking space, or of his ability to use the diversion in place once Company Z’s roadworks was complete.
47. As a result, the Council has not demonstrated how it gave due regard to the impact to Mr X as a disabled person of its decision to grant two TTROs in respect of Road A. This is not in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty and is therefore fault.
48. I acknowledge advance notification was provided to residents ahead of the TTROs being in place, and this may have allowed residents to make alternative arrangements for parking their cars. However, as Mr X is a wheelchair user and had a designated disabled parking space at his address, he was unable to relocate his car prior to the works being carried out.
49. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice to Mr X. He says the period he was unable to use his car as a result of the road closures was about three or four months. The injustice to Mr X is the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of his inability to use his car.

Back to top

Action

50. To address the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X in recognition of the distress caused, and
3. Remind staff to consider the Public Sector Equality Duty as part of the Council’s decision-making process.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to address the injustice identified. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman