South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 011 601)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 13 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to install road markings outside her house to prevent parking opposite it. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to install road markings outside her house to prevent parking. She said that resulted in vehicles driving on what is meant to be a walkway.
  2. Mrs X said that vehicles drove within a foot of the front lawn meaning there was there was no safe walkway outside her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her complaint to the Council and its response.
  2. Mrs X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mrs X lives off a shared road on a housing estate. The road she lives on serves five houses. The estate was built in the 1970’s.
  2. When the estate was built there was a cobbled area outside Mrs X’s house; she said it had a tree in it. She said that cobbled area created a walkway separate to the road. In 2013, the Council removed most of the cobbled area. The Council said there was not a tree there in 2013.
  3. Mrs X said her neighbours were parking on the road opposite her house. That meant other vehicles driving on the road were driving on the area outside her house on the walkway. Mrs X wrote to the Council and asked it to put road markings outside her home. The Council refused. Mrs X complained.
  4. The Council’s complaint response said:
      1. The area outside her house was a shared surface area and had been since the estate’s development. Therefore, there was no specific footpath. That meant it was not illegal for vehicles to drive on the area.
      2. It had spoken to the Parking Team who said the introduction of ‘no waiting restrictions’ to residential areas could be problematic, as residents tended to object to proposals that limit parking outside their property. It said it could not instruct residents to park on their driveways.
      3. It could write out to neighbours but did not want to escalate a neighbour dispute. It said any neighbour dispute must be declared to potential buyers and solicitor therefore could affect the sale of a property.
      4. It had introduced a 20mph speed limit in 2011 and there had been no traffic accidents for the last five years.
  5. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. 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.
  2. The Council decided not to put road markings outside Mrs X’s house or to instruct neighbours to park on their driveways. The Council’s response to Mrs X explains the Council’s reasoning behind its decision. It has explained the area outside her house is a shared surface area. Any changes the Council made to the road were made in 2013 and therefore too late be considered as part of my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
  3. Even if there were any fault by the Council, it would not have caused Mrs X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was not at fault for not preventing parking opposite Mrs X’s house. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings