The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing traffic restrictions in the area where Mr X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. we will not exercise discretion to consider the consultation in 2017 because this was outside the 12-month period for accepting complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s implementation of traffic restrictions in his area which has introduced one-way and junction restrictions. He says this has impacted on traffic, caused congestion and affected house prices.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 organisationl.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the implementation of highway changes in his area has increased traffic congestion and made it inconvenient for him to drive in and out of the street where he lives due to one-way access and junction restrictions. He says the consultation in 2017 on the introduction of the Traffic Management Order which introduced the changes was inadequate and should be re-considered.
The Council carried out non-statutory consultation with residents in 2017 and a small majority were in favour of the proposals. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 highway authorities must notify residents of proposed changes to traffic schemes and may carry out consultation as they see appropriate. In this case the results of the informal consultation were favourable for the scheme and the Order was made.
There is no evidence of fault in the process of making the order and Mr X could have submitted his objections at the time. if he believes the procedure was flawed, he had a right to appeal to the High Court within six weeks of the making of the order.
We will not exercise discretion consider the details of the consultation in 2017. This was outside the normal 12-month limit for complaints about this matter and it was reasonable for Mr X to complain to us at the time. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing traffic restrictions in the area where Mr X lives. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. we will not exercise discretion to consider the consultation in 2017 because this was outside the 12-month period for accepting complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman