The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to consult emergency services before introducing traffic restrictions to his local town centre. His claimed injustice – that the changes may cause delays to emergency vehicles going down the high street – is too hypothetical to justify further investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, represents a residents’ association. He complains that the Council did not properly consult the emergency services before issuing a series of traffic regulation orders (TROs) in September 2021. The TROs fundamentally changed the traffic arrangements in Mr B’s local town centre.
Mr B also complains that the Council similarly failed when it subsequently amended one of the TROs to include a bus stop on a single carriageway on the high street.
Mr B says that the changes to the town centre – particularly the new bus stop – could cause delays for emergency vehicles trying to pass through. He wants the Council to consult the emergency services properly before proceeding.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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’.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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 if any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr B and the Council.
I considered relevant parts of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which I refer to as ‘the Regulations’.
Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
A TRO is an official order made by a council which describes the nature and extent of traffic restrictions in a certain area. Councils must follow a statutory process, as set out in the Regulations, before issuing TROs. If someone believes a council has failed to follow this process, they can challenge the TRO in the High Court.
Mr B could have taken this matter to court when the Council issued the TRO. However, by the time he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman the time limit for court action had expired. Because of this, it would not be reasonable to expect him to go to court now.
Nonetheless, this does not mean the Ombudsman can replicate the consideration a court would have given to this matter. We are not an appeal stage and we do not consider statutory challenges on points of law in the way a court might. We do consider complaints about things councils do, or fail to do – but only if we are satisfied that the person complaining may have suffered an injustice.
The Council has provided some evidence to suggest that it followed the formal consultation process before issuing the TROs in 2021. It is also allowed, under the Regulations, to subsequently modify an order without further consultation if the modification is not substantial. And each of the statutory consultees – including the three emergency services – would have had the opportunity to challenge the final orders in the High Court if they thought the Council had failed to consult them properly.
Because of this, it does not appear, at this stage, that there is evidence of fault. But to reach a proper decision I would need to investigate further, and there has been no injustice to Mr B or his fellow residents which would justify such an investigation. The injustice they claim – that emergency vehicles may be delayed going through the town centre – is speculative.
When someone has suffered because of a Council’s mistake, we try to put them back in the position they would have been if that mistake had not happened. In the absence of any suggestion that Mr B or his fellow residents have actually suffered an injustice, there would be no remedy I could recommend.
For these reasons, I will discontinue my investigation.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation into Mr B’s complaint. His claimed injustice is too hypothetical to justify further investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman