Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consult him about parking restrictions which were introduced on his street in 2019. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to consult him over its introduction of parking restriction on the street where he lives. He says he was unaware of the decision to introduce double yellow lines until they were painted outside his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he was unaware of proposals to introduce parking restrictions on his street until lines were painted outside his home in 2019. He says that residents should have been properly consulted. He complained to the Council and it informed him that residents in the area had notices posted by hand in 2018 and that further notices of the proposed scheme were fixed to lighting columns in the area.
5. Mr X says he would have objected to the scheme if he had received a letter. The Council says his address was included on the notices schedule. If Mr X had objected to the proposed Traffic Regulation order this would not have meant the Council would have needed to change its proposals.
6. Councils are only required to notify statutory bodies and if they consult with residents this is not a referendum and does not have a right of appeal. If a highway authority decides that an Order should be introduced for traffic management purposes it can do so even if the residents of the area affected object to it. The Council did not receive an objection from Mr X, so it was not required to write to him to explain why the Order was introduced.
7. 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. There is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for introducing the Traffic Regulation Order.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman