Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to introduce parking controls near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complains the Council failed to include her address in a consultation for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). She also complains it refuses to grant her a parking permit to allow her to park within the CPZ.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B’s address is in Road A. However, the access is onto Road B.
6. The Council decided to consult residents of Road B on the introduction of a CPZ. As Road A is not within the CPZ, residents of Road A were not included in the consultation.
7. The Council cannot be expected to know of the unusual access situation. It needs to draw the 'consultation line' somewhere, even if the proposed CPZ may affect people outside of the zone. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the consultation.
8. Miss B also complains the Council refuses to grant her a parking permit to allow her to park in Road B. She says she has had knee surgery and her father is unwell. It is difficult for her to park close to her home.
9. The Council confirms it introduced a Traffic Management Order following approval of a report to the Council. The same report also specifies that residents living outside the CPZ boundary will not be eligible for a parking permit.
10. To change the CPZ, the Council will have to amend the TMO. It considers the cost of this would be prohibitive.
11. The Council also says it is aware of Miss B’s difficulties. However, it has advised that she is able to park in Road C which is not much further from her home than Road B. It also confirms that a parking permit would not guarantee her a parking space in Road B.
12. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 set out the procedures the Council must follow to introduce the TMO. It is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in the process the Council followed before introducing the TMO.
13. Miss B also complains the Council has failed to follow the complaints procedure when dealing with her concerns. The Council has apologised for this failure, which I consider to be a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. Also, we do not consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman