Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of new parking restrictions in a controlled parking zone. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s addition of new parking restriction lines which he says make access to his drive less accessible than previous advisory white lines outside his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council introduced a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in his area following consultation with residents. Previously there was an advisory parking bay outside his home marked by a white line. When the new parking zone was created the Council painted a new yellow line over the previous line and marked out new parking bays.
7. He says that he was not consulted by the Council about the loss of the old parking markings and the new yellow line covers a different area outside his drive making access more difficult in his view. He asked the Council to re-instate the previous marking.
8. The Council explained that the new yellow lines are compulsory restrictions and unlike the previous white line are enforceable under traffic law. This makes the chance of cars obstructing driveways less likely because they would incur a penalty. The previous markings have no legal status where they have not been covered and only markings contained in the traffic order for the CPZ have valid meaning on the highway.
9. The Council is the highway authority, and it is responsible for introducing traffic orders and the restrictions which must meet the statutory guidance on traffic signs and markings. It would not be possible for the previous markings to be re-introduced if they are not contained within the traffic order.
10. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of new parking restrictions in a controlled parking zone. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman