Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the way the Council consulted local residents on its proposal for a controlled parking zone and its refusal of her application for a dropped kerb. This is because we have not seen evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs A, complains the Council did not consult her about a proposed controlled parking zone (CPZ) affecting her property. She also complains the Council refused her subsequent application for a dropped kerb under the CPZ scheme.
2. Mrs A says she has lost value in her property and rental income because of the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have reviewed Mrs A’s complaint and the Councils responses. I have also considered Mrs A comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council proposed creating a controlled parking zone (CPZ) which aimed to improve safety, reduce traffic, and enable residents to park outside their homes. It also felt the CPZ would improve related issues such as inconsiderate parking, traffic flow and pedestrian safety near schools.
7. The Council must consult on such proposals and it must take account of the results. But it is not bound by them. Local residents may object to a proposal but if the Council feels its reasons for introducing a CPZ outweigh the points raised, it may decide to proceed anyway. In order to implement a new CPZ the Council must make a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and publish a ‘notice of making’ in a local newspaper. The validity of a TMO is subject to challenge within six weeks of the date the order is made.
8. The Council circulated its plans on its website and sent letters to all the properties in the proposed CPZ area. It addressed the letters to the ‘owner/ occupier’. It also put up notices in the area and publicised the proposal in a local newspaper and on its website. The information suggested that if an owner was considering having a dropped kerb, they should apply before the end of the consultation period, otherwise the application may be refused or increased costs may apply.
9. The Council considered the responses to the consultation and approved the CPZ in line with its policies. The CPZ went live in mid-2019.
10. Mrs A owns a property in the CPZ area which she rents out to tenants. In early 2020, Mrs A found out about the CPZ and applied for a dropped kerb. However, the Council refused the application as the scheme was already live and the new rules apply.
11. Mrs A is unhappy she was not made aware of the CPZ consultation as either the Council’s letter was not sent to her property, or the tenants did not pass it to her. She says the Council should have addressed the letter to her name. She also says it should have sent it to her personal address as it knew her contact details through her registration as a landlord under the Council’s landlord licencing scheme.
12. The Council says it followed its consultation policy and its records show Mrs A’s property was on the list of letters sent. It confirmed it received responses from other residents in the same street as Mrs A’s property so has no reason to believe her letter was not sent out.
13. The Council agreed its responses to Mrs A could have given more details on its reasons for refusing her late application for a dropped kerb. But confirmed this did not affect the outcome of the decision.

Analysis

14. I appreciate Mrs A was not aware of the Council’s controlled parking zone (CPZ) proposals. However, I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council consulted on the CPZ. The Council handled its consultation in accordance with the regulations and its policies. The Council was not required to send letters to named addressee’s or to a landlord’s personal addresses outside the CPZ area.
15. Mrs A also suggests the Council should have included a warning on the consultation letter requiring all tenants to pass the letter to their landlord. It is not the Councils responsibility to ensure tenants keep their landlord informed of correspondence sent to their properties. This is an arrangement for individual landlords and tenants to make.
16. The Council refused Mrs A’s application for a dropped kerb as it was made after the new CPZ came into effect. This is a decision it is entitled to make, and I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out its consultation on the CPZ. Nor is there evidence of fault in the decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman