Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a possible error with a Traffic Regulation Order and the Council’s response to his ‘freedom of information request’ about the Order. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X injustice and if Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his information request it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to answer his questions about a Traffic Regulation Order. Mr X was issued a speeding fine for driving at more than 30mph and believes the Order, which has been used to determine the speed limit of the road, may have contained an error.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council is not responsible for enforcing speed limits; this is a matter for the police.
6. Mr X has asked the Council for information he believes is relevant to the speeding fine and if he is not happy with the Council’s response it would be reasonable for him to go to the Information Commissioner.
7. If Mr X believes the police were wrong to issue him a speeding fine, for whatever reason, he could have challenged it at court. The Council has no involvement in this process and is not responsible for any injustice caused by the fine.
8. Mr X says the Council’s responses claim there was no issue with the Order but that it has recently revoked it and made a new Order. It is not the Council’s role to advise Mr X about whether the legal basis for a speeding fine issued by the police may be flawed. If there was an error in the Order then any remedy for this issue would be to rectify the error, as Mr X suggests it has done. There would therefore be no basis for us investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence to show the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to his ‘freedom of information’ request it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman