Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about parking restrictions introduced by the Council. It is unlikely he would find fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained the Council will not alter parking restrictions on the road where he lives. He says the recent restrictions have led to him being unable to access his home safely.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. The Council provided a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which allows it to enforce the parking restrictions in Mr B’s road. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Parking restrictions

6. To introduce parking restrictions, the Council had to make a in accordance with the Regulations. ( Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
7. The Regulations set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a TRO.
8. In summary, to begin the formal process, a council must:
• publish a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper;
• make documents relating to the proposal available for public inspection;
• inform statutory consultees, including the police; and
• give other publicity to the proposal the council considers is appropriate.
9. A council must publish a notice within 14 days of making a TRO, give adequate publicity to the TRO and write to any objectors outlining the reasons for going ahead with the proposal.
10. The notice must also advise there is a right to apply to the High Court within 6 weeks of the date of the TRO. This can be on the basis that:-
• the council does not have powers to make the order; or
• the council has not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.
11. The TRO sets out the restrictions in detail and they may become unenforceable if they are not properly reflected in road markings and signage.

Analysis

12. Mr B accesses off-street parking at his home using a dropped kerb to cross the footway which has been in place for many years. Before September 2019 there were no parking restrictions in the road.
13. Following informal consultation, the Council began the formal process of making a TRO to restrict parking in Mr B’s road. This included formal consultation when people could object to the proposal and a period when the TRO could be challenged in the High Court. I have seen nothing to suggest there was fault by the Council in how it made the TRO.
14. When the TRO came into force, the Council marked out the restrictions on the road. Mr B complained to the Council that he could no longer exit his property without driving on the opposite pavement. He asked the Council to amend the markings but it has only made some minor adjustments. The Council has refused to make further changes.
15. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in making the TRO and marking the highway to reflect the restrictions it introduced.
16. Further, the road previously had no restrictions and drivers could park anywhere that was otherwise legal. It appears Mr B had no difficulty accessing his property at that time. I do not consider the introduction of restrictions, of whatever dimensions, could in itself have adversely altered that situation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused Mr B injustice that justifies our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman