London Borough of Ealing (08 013 187)

Parking                         Maladministration causing injustice

07 July 2009

Ealing Council’s consultation exercise for a controlled parking zone (CPZ) was inadequate. The Ombudsman said the documentation sent out by the Council as part of the consultation exercise was “deficient in not drawing the attention of the recipients to the possibility of displacement parking on streets left out of the CPZ,” which means that they were given insufficient information to make an informed decision on whether they wished their street to be included.

‘Mr Shah’ (not his real name) complained that the Council failed to deal properly with the implementation of the CPZ in the area where he lived. His home was on a cul-de-sac that was excluded from the CPZ, although the road it led from was included.

After the consultation exercise, a number of roads had been selected for inclusion in the scheme. A plan to reconsult residents of six roads excluded from the scheme (including Mr Shah’s) was not pursued, although it was recognised that these roads were likely to suffer an adverse impact as a result of displacement parking. Two of the roads were then included in the scheme, but not Mr Shah’s road.

Mr Shah said he was frequently unable to park in his own road, and then had to park several streets away, as those around him were either within the CPZ or similarly affected by displacement parking.

The Ombudsman considered that the consultation exercise for the CPZ was inadequate, denying many of the recipients an opportunity to express a meaningful view. Despite the obvious inadequacies of the scheme that has been implemented, the Council also failed to take steps to bring forward the review of the CPZ and seemed unlikely to be able to do so within a year of the scheme coming into operation, as set out in its policy. Mr Shah, and others, might therefore have to put up with parking problems for longer than should have been the case.

Remedy

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and, in accordance with his recommendations, the Council:

• carried out a review of the CPZ for Mr Shah’s area;
• paid Mr Shah £500 to reflect the fact that residents were denied the opportunity to make a fully-informed decision on the proposed CPZ in December 2006, and for the delay in carrying out a review of the CPZ; and
• paid Mr Shah a further £500 to reflect his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

LGO satisfied with Council's response: 23 December 2009
 

Date Updated: 04/01/10