Summary: Mr K complains the Council unlawfully introduced double yellow parking controls on a private road where he lives without carrying out a consultation. He also says the Council ignored a petition signed by 800 against these proposals in 2018 which was signed by local residents. We found the Council could propose the parking scheme because the road was public highway which it lawfully adopted. It undertook a measured consultation which was supported by the Council advertising the parking scheme locally. The Council did not receive any responses to the consultation and so it completed the parking controls under the proposed scheme. We have not identified any fault by the Council and the complaint is not upheld.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr K, is making a complaint about the Council introducing double yellow parking controls (the Scheme) on a road where he and his wife lives. He alleges the following:
1. The Council has no power to introduce the Scheme because the roads are not public highways, but rather owned by local residents.
2. The Council introduced the Scheme without any consultation with residents, or impact assessment as to how this would those living and trading in the area.
3. The Council ignored a petition signed by around 800 residents who were against the proposals to introduce parking controls in the area.
4. The Scheme adversely affects those with disabilities.
2. In summary, Mr K says the parking controls under the Scheme are unlawful introduced and having an adverse impact on his household due to members of this having physical disabilities. As a desired outcome, Mr K wants the Council to remove the parking Scheme and undertake a proper consultation process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have read Mr K’s complaints to the Council and Ombudsman. I have produced this report following examining relevant files and documents and making enquiries of the complainant and relevant employees of the Council. I have also had regard to applicable legislation, guidance and policy. I provided the complainant and Council with a confidential draft of my decision and invited their comments. The comments received were considered before my final decision was made.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

Highway adoption

9. The Highways Act 1980 ("the Act") contains various rules whereby roads can be adopted by the highway authority as highways maintainable at public expense. New roads that are of sufficient public utility may be adopted by way of an agreement between the developer and the authority under section 38 of the Act.
10. Local highway authorities also have the power to introduce parking restrictions and schemes under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Chronology of events

11. In October 2018, Mr K sent a petition to the Council. This was signed by around 800 residents and trades. The petition outlined a collective view which was against a proposal advertised in 2018 to introduce parking restrictions in a much broader area that the road Mr K lives on.
12. In May 2021, the request for proposals of the Scheme was received at a Council meeting. This was in relation to a different road and unrelated to the proposals which led Mr K to submit a petition to the Council in 2018.
13. In August 2021, the proposals were signed off for advertisement and consultation, with a recommendation that the proposals be implemented should no comments be received. The proposals were advertised by erecting three site notices on the road subject to the proposed Scheme. Further, the Council posted letters to each resident on Mr K’s road giving notice of the proposal and inviting comments. The proposals were also posted in two local newspapers.
14. In October 2021, the Scheme proposals came into effect following the Council receiving no consultation responses.

My assessment

Adoption of public highway

15. I recognise Mr K believes his road is owned by local residents, but the Highways Register shows this road was adopted by the Council in 1943. The Council has provided evidence for the adoption. The road subject to this complaint is not owned by local residents, but is a public highway, maintainable by the Council. There was no fault by the Council in proposing the Scheme.

Scheme Consultation

16. The evidence shows the proposals for the Scheme were properly advertised by the Council. I recognise Mr K disagrees the Council carried out a consultation, but the evidence presented to me does not support his position. The Council did not receive any consultation responses and so it introduced the double yellow parking controls. There was no fault by the Council for consulting locally, as it should. There was also no fault how it considered the consultation outcome to inform decision making. I therefore cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision to implement the Scheme because it was made without fault.
17. I recognise and appreciate Mr K has since complained the Scheme impacts on his disabled wife to collect prescription medication. However, blue badge holders can park on double yellow lines for a permitted amount of time. There is no evidence the Scheme adversely impacts on people who are disabled.

Petition to the Council

18. I found the petition Mr K sent was in relation to different proposals to those proposed and consulted for in 2021.The Council said it would not take into account a petition submitted three years earlier for a different scheme. In any event, the Council advertised the Scheme and engaged in a consultation with local residents and trades. Residents and trades were given the opportunity to provide feedback they felt was relevant to information to the petition. I have not found fault by the Council for not considering the petition for the purposes of the Scheme and introduction.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The complaint is not upheld. The Council proposed a Scheme in relation to a public highway it adopted. It undertook a measured consultation which was supported by the Council advertising the Scheme locally. The Council did not receive any responses and so it implemented the Scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman