Summary: Mr X complained there was a fault with the Council’s public engagement process for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Mr X said the Council provided misleading information that was biased in favour of the CPZ and this will result in a financial cost to him. We find the Council at fault for providing inaccurate information, but we find it has already taken suitable action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains there was a major procedural fault with the Council’s public engagement process for its proposed CPZ. Specifically, Mr X says the Council:
• gave misleading information in its public consultation. It failed to quote potential parking costs, used outdated maps, and did not do enough to encourage residents to respond;
• gave misleading response figures when providing an update on the public engagement;
• failed to properly explain who was eligible to respond and whether it would consider more than one response per household.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated the complaint points set out above, aside from:
• The Council gave misleading information in its public consultation. It failed to quote potential parking costs, used outdated maps, and did not do enough to encourage residents to respond
3. This aspect of the complaint would have been apparent to Mr X at the time the consultation was sent out in February 2021. Mr X did not bring his complaint to us until December 2022, more than 12 months later, so these complaints have been raised late. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have brought them to us sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Introducing a CPZ

9. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows Councils to introduce Traffic Management Orders (TMO) and CPZs.
10. The procedures for creating a TMO are in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
11. Councils will often carry out some consultation in the area before deciding to make a TMO. However, unless a council says otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make a TMO is for the council.

The Council’s CPZ policy

12. The Council’s CPZ policy is published on its website. This sets out the factors the Council considers when deciding whether to have a CPZ in the borough.
13. The policy explains the Council carries out consultations in two stages.
14. At Stage 1, the Council carries out an informal public consultation. This allows residents and others affected to give their views so the Council can tailor its proposals to the local needs. The policy explains the Council considers the results on an area-wide basis but finalises the area it intends to consider for a CPZ once it has taken account of all responses.
15. The policy explains the Council will look to introduce a CPZ in areas, or sub-areas of the consulted area where at least 51% of respondents have voted in favour of it. It acknowledges this means some streets may vote against a CPZ but be included due to the votes of surrounding roads but where this is the case, the Council will make its rationale available to residents. It also explains there may be exceptional circumstances where the Council proceeds with the CPZ despite fewer than 51% of respondents being in favour. These decisions are for the Head of Operations in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and Ward Councillors.
16. Should the Council receive a response rate below 10% the consultation will be deemed inconclusive, and the scheme will not progress without further engagement that results in a response rate higher than 10%.
17. Stage 2 is the formal statutory consultation process where proposals are advertised in the local press and notices on lamp posts in the area. This period of consultation usually allows 21 days for people to comment on the proposed CPZ.

What happened

18. In February 2021 the Council wrote to residents saying it was consulting them about a possible new CPZ. The letter provided a weblink to information about CPZs and permit prices.
19. The letter invited responses by 17 March 2021 either online, or by returning a questionnaire. It explained officers would analyse the results and discuss the outcome with ward councillors. The Council would provide updates of the next steps with the results of the consultation, which would be published on its website. The letter also included a map highlighting the consultation area.
20. The letter invited responses from residents but did not impose limits of one response per household.
21. However, at this time the CPZ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the Council’s website explained it was seeking to analyse views from properties rather than individuals. It said the Council calculates response rates based on the number of valid questionnaires received and it may consider returned forms to be invalid if there were multiple responses per household.
22. In July 2022 the Council wrote to residents and businesses explaining over 23% of people in the area had responded with 52.9% of respondents not supporting the introduction of a full time CPZ.
23. It explained responses showed a sub-area of 19 roads had a majority that supported some form of CPZ, and most of those roads were in the east of the proposed area. Of those 19 roads 56% of respondents supported a CPZ.
24. The letter explained the majority of roads in the west of the proposed area were against a CPZ.
25. The letter explained the Council had decided to proceed with a statutory consultation to implement a CPZ across 19 roads only. It listed the roads and provided a link to the full public engagement on the Council’s website. It also explained it would consider any objections or representations received within 21 days of the statutory consultation beginning.
26. Mr X complained to the Council on 19 October. He said the Council’s decision to implement a CPZ was flawed and the Council had published numerous discrepancies within the data. Specifically, Mr X said:
• The letter of February 2021 did not specify who was eligible to respond and the Council’s website said it would only consider one response per household. However, a freedom of information request showed the Council considered multiple responses per household.
• The Council’s letter of July 2022 gave misleading and inaccurate figures, meaning the voting percentages were incorrect.
27. In October 2022 the Council wrote to residents to explain the statutory consultation was beginning and how they could participate. The Council said it had received over 1,000 responses and 53.6% did not support the introduction of a full time CPZ.
28. However, it explained a sub-area to the east of the proposed area, containing 20 roads, had a majority in favour of a CPZ. It acknowledged not all roads responded in favour and listed the 20 roads included, this mirrored the 19 roads listed in the Council’s previous communication plus one other.
29. The Council explained, since its letter of July 2022, it had identified a small change in the figures previously reported and gave amended figures.
30. The Council now proposed a CPZ in the identified sub-area with the statutory consultation beginning on 19 October, providing a 21-day window for objections or submissions to the proposals. The Council explained the final date for submissions was 9 November and invited any questions. It explained it would consider all objections and submissions to decide whether to introduce parking controls and would write again with the outcome of this. The letter also contained a map highlighting the roads included in the plans.
31. The Council also agreed to remove the information from its website which suggested it would not consider multiple responses per household.
32. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 8 November. It said:
• The FAQs on the Council’s website were outdated. The Council’s CPZ policy sets out how it makes decisions and does not state that it only records one response per household.
• As soon as it identified errors in its reporting, it acknowledged and corrected them. Taking the errors into account, the Council’s decision still stands as the majority of respondents within the identified sub-area still supported a CPZ.
• The statutory consultation period provided an opportunity for objections and submissions, which the Council would formally consider before making decisions.
• If he remained unhappy, Mr X could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
33. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2022.
34. In response to a draft of this decision, Mr X said:
• The Council’s letter of February 2021 did not say who was eligible to respond. This may have affected the voting numbers and whether the Council would meet its minimum response thresholds as well as weighting the votes towards households who did have more than one response.
• The Council calculated its response rates on the number of responses against the number of households rather than against the number of eligible respondents. This creates a false impression of the response rates.
• He believes the Council chose to ignore its own guidelines to allow it to manipulate the figures, as every mistake made has gone in favour of implementing a CPZ.
• The Council did not remove the erroneous information from its website until after the responses were already received and counted.

Analysis

Considering multiple responses per household

35. The consultation document the Council sent to residents in February 2021 invited responses from residents and businesses without restriction. Neither this document, nor the Council’s CPZ policy, discouraged multiple responses and I do not find fault with the information the Council provided.
36. However, the Council’s website contained outdated information, which suggested it may not count multiple responses per household. This is inaccurate, which is fault. However, the Council did include multiple responses in its analysis and there was no personal injustice to Mr X.
37. The Council has now removed the erroneous information from its website and this is a sufficient remedy to the injustice identified above.

Misinterpretation of voting percentages

38. When the Council wrote to residents in July 2022 with the results of its initial consultation, it misquoted voting percentage figures. This is fault and would have caused uncertainty.
39. However, the difference in figures was minor and did not alter the Council’s overall analysis of the responses. The Council corrected these figures when it wrote to residents in October 2022 to explain it had decided to start the statutory consultation. My view is this is a suitable remedy to the uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find the Council at fault for providing inaccurate information during the public consultation process. However, the Council has subsequently corrected that information and I find that is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman