Ombudsman criticises Ealing Council over controlled parking zone

Archived press release

Date Published: 15/07/09

Ealing Council’s consultation exercise for a controlled parking zone (CPZ) was inadequate.

Ealing Council’s consultation exercise for a controlled parking zone (CPZ) was inadequate, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (15 July 2009) he says 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 for legal reasons) complained that the Council failed to deal properly with the implementation of the CPZ in the area where he lives. His home is on a cul-de-sac that was excluded from the CPZ, although the road it leads from was included.

After the consultation exercise, a number of roads were 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 now says he is frequently unable to park in his own road, and then has to park several streets away, as those around him are 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 has also failed to take steps to bring forward the review of the CPZ and seems unlikely to be able to do this within a year of the scheme coming into operation, as set out in its policy. Mr Shah, and others, may therefore have to put up with parking problems for longer than should have been the case.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends the Council to:

• ensure that the CPZ for Mr Shah’s area is reviewed at the earliest opportunity;
• pay 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
• pay Mr Shah a further £500 to reflect his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
   

Report ref 08 013 187