Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request for double yellow lines to be installed outside his property. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains that despite being told by the Council for 2 years that it would hold a consultation about installing double yellow lines outside his property, it has not done so. He says he feels lied to and that while other highway cases were reviewed, his was not.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council because it had led him to believe for 2 years that it would be installing double yellow lines outside his property so as to address problems he has with entering and exiting his driveway.
6. The Council acknowledged it had raised his expectations that the installation of the lines would be completed but explained that after the new administration at the Council took over, the list of requests for parking restrictions was reviewed due to restricted resources and his was not included as it was not considered to be a priority.
7. While it is disappointing for Mr X to have now been told his request does not have sufficient priority to be taken forward, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman. While we can consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision, if there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome.
8. While it is noted Mr X’s expectations that the lines would be installed had been raised, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman and it is open to Mr X to engage with the new validation procedure now in place.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman