The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic restrictions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. Also, the complainant’s claim for financial losses is a legal matter for the courts to decide.
The complaint
Dr X, a business owner, complains about the Council’s decision to introduce a bus lane and related parking restrictions near their business. Dr X says the Council failed to consider the serious impact that the measures would have on their business by restricting delivery times, as well as core collection times for customers.
More specifically, Dr X says the Council: failed to consider the people who had worked all their lives to build their business. Dr X thinks it is unacceptable to have this taken away from them without any form of compensation; ignored their advice offered in their role as chair of a group representing local businesses; and, failed to mention the huge number of objections received and only mentioned the bus companies in a meeting about the measures.
Dr X is concerned the measures will lead to job losses and businesses having to close over time as they will not be able to operate at key times of the day.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman’s role is to look at whether there was fault in how the council made its decisions. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information, and given clear reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it.
I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process when making the decision to introduce the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for a part-time bus lane. This is based on the following: in spring 2025, the Council started initial consultations with various bodies, including local businesses, to gather key information, including about delivery times and opening hours; between May and June 2025, the Council carried out further consultations delivering letters to local businesses and residents inviting them to send any feedback. Also, it held a public engagement event; the Council considered all feedback, including from businesses, which led to it including significant changes to the proposal with the aim of limiting its impact on local businesses. This included reducing the bus lane restrictions from full-time to part-time so it applied during peak times only; introducing new parking measures in a nearby car park to provide convenient parking for short visits to nearby shops; and, introducing a loading and parking bay on a nearby road; in July, the Council published the changes to the proposal in a local newspaper and took other steps it considered necessary, including displaying notices of the proposal on street furniture; it carried out significant and timely consultations, including a face-to-face consultation with business owners in late 2025; and, all objections, including Dr X’s, were considered by the Council before making its decision in early 2026.
Based on the above, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process and properly considered the impact of the restrictions. The Council was aware introducing the bus lane would restrict access to parking and this could have a negative impact on local businesses. But, the Council decided that the positives outweighed any negatives and so the changes should be introduced. It reached this decision after considering the objections raised and including key measures to reduce the impact. This is a decision it was entitled to take. As the Council properly considered the scheme, I consider it unlikely that we would find fault.
I understand Dr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to introduce a part-time bus lane. But, this is not evidence of fault. The law does not give anybody the right to park on the public highway. It is for the Council to decide where people should be allowed to park and when. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the appropriate parking scheme for an area. The Council made a decision that is in line with the statutory process. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
The Council told Dr X that it was unable to offer compensation to business owners under the bus lane scheme. Dr X is unhappy with this decision. This is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve. Only the courts can decide whether to award compensation. It is open to Dr X to make a claim for loss of income through the Council’s insurers and, if this is rejected, proceed with court action about the matter. It is reasonable to expect Dr X to follow this process. Only the courts can decide whether the Council is liable for any losses. So, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about traffic restrictions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. Also, the complainant’s claim for financial losses is a legal matter for the courts to decide.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman