Surrey County Council (20 010 667)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 13 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly advise him on how to apply for a vehicle crossover and changes to the on-street parking bay outside his property. Mr X first requested changes to the on-street parking bays in 2019. He considered the process for altering on street parking is unwieldly and has led to unfair delay. There is no evidence the Council gave Mr X incorrect or misleading information about the process for requesting vehicle crossovers or for requesting changes to parking controls. Nor is there any evidence of delay.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complains the Council failed to properly advise him on how to apply for a vehicle crossover and changes to the on-street parking bay outside his property. Mr X first requested changes to the on-street parking bays in 2019. He complains that although the Council has now agreed, in principle, to make these changes, it will not carry out the work until 2022. Mr X considers the process for altering on street parking is unwieldly and has led to unfair delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • discussed the issues with Mr X;
    • Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Vehicle crossovers

  1. Any person may ask a highways authority to construct a vehicle crossover over a footway or verge in the highway. The highway authority may approve, or reject the application, or propose alternative works.
  2. The Council’s guidance for householders sets out the criteria by which all applications are assessed. This includes minimum space requirements and safety considerations. It also confirms that where there is formally designated on-street parking in the vicinity of the proposed vehicle crossover, the request will be refused.

Parking reviews

  1. The Council reviews the parking in each borough every 12-18 months. As part of this review it will consider requests from residents for new controls or changes to existing ones. The Council’s engineers will assess each request, taking into account factors such as
    • Road safety;
    • Accessibility;
    • Congestion;
    • The possibility of displacing a problem; and
    • The amount of support for the request.
  2. The Council then compiles a report with recommendations for the local committee who decide whether to make any changes.

What happened here

  1. All of the houses on Mr X’s side of the street, except his have vehicle crossovers so residents can park on drives at the front of their properties. Mr X wanted to convert his front garden to a drive so that he no longer had to park on the road.
  2. In 2019 Mr X contacted the Council to enquire about the likelihood of obtaining a vehicle crossover as there are two marked parking bays in front of his property. Mr X offered to relinquish two spaces the Council had granted him on an area of land at the end of the street, to replace the parking spaces in front of his property which would be lost.
  3. The Council’s highway service acknowledged Mr X’s query and explained he would have to go through the parking review process to remove the parking bays. It advised this was a lengthy process and provided a link to the relevant information. The Council also confirmed the bays would need to be removed before a vehicle crossover could be granted.
  4. In March 2019 Mr X made a parking review request to remove the two bays. The Council acknowledged the request and confirmed the next review was scheduled to begin in September and October, and that recommendations would be presented to the local committee for approval in December. The Council’s email incorrectly referred to dates in 2018, rather than 2019. The Council also advised that given the number of requests it receives it is not possible to notify people individually whether their request has been recommended for approval. It suggested Mr X keep up to date via the Council’s website.
  5. Mr X contacted the Council again in January 2020 to request an update on his application. He then chased the Council for a response in February 2020. An Officer from the Parking Team (Officer 1) wrote to Mr X confirming his request was assessed as part of the latest parking review. As Mr X’s property is in the centre of the two parking bays, both bays would need to be removed to create a vehicle crossover. The Council deemed this was too significant a reduction in on- street parking and would not remove the bays outside Mr X’s property.
  6. Mr X was unhappy with this response and asked Officer 1 to reconsider. He calculated that only one of the parking bays needed to be removed, with a slight adjustment to re-position the remaining bay. Mr X stated every property on his side of the road had a vehicle crossover and the parking bays removed. He asked why, given this precedent, the Council had refused his request.
  7. Officer 1’s response explained that a new vehicle crossover is normally 4.5m in width, which would take up almost the entire width of Mr X’s property. And as a parking bay cannot cover any part of the vehicle crossover, there was no space for a parking bay between a new crossover and the existing crossovers of neighbouring properties. Officer 1 also confirmed the Council had not removed any parking bays on Mr X’s street since the parking team was set up in 2008.
  8. Having considered the matter further, Mr X contacted Officer 1 again in late July 2020. He provided diagrams showing how the parking could be rearranged to accommodate a vehicle crossover. Officer 1 acknowledged that while Mr X’s diagram showed a driveway opening of 3m, the vehicle crossover to that opening would still be 4.5m. The parking bay could not therefore be marked all the way up to Mr X’s driveway opening as shown on Mr X’s diagram.
  9. Mr X reviewed his proposal and sent Officer 1 a revised plan which he considered met the criteria for a vehicle cross over and allowed one on street parking bay. Mr X chased Officer 1 for a response and then made a formal complaint about the lack of contact.
  10. Officer 1 apologised for the delay in responding and reiterated that he worked for the parking team. He was not directly involved in vehicle crossover applications or assessments, which were carried out by the Council’s highways team. Officer 1 confirmed it would be possible to reduce the parking bay to 4.5m as shown on Mr X’s revised plan. However, he did not consider it was feasible to install a vehicle crossover in the way Mr X had drawn. Officer 1 confirmed he had asked the highways team to comment on Mr X’s drawings prior to him submitting a formal application.
  11. The Council also responded to Mr X’s complaint. It acknowledged Officer 1 had not responded to Mr X’s emails within the expected timeframes and apologised.
  12. A highways officer met with Mr X in October 2020 to discuss whether it would be possible to install a vehicle crossover to his property. They identified two possibilities which would require one parking bay to be removed. The highways officer provisionally marked out the position of the new vehicle crossover.
  13. Officer 1 then confirmed that as the marked crossover allowed for the retention of a 4.5m parking bay they could propose the reduction of the parking bay as part of the next parking review. Officer 1 advised Mr X it was open to him to formally apply for a vehicle crossover based on the markings, which would then be subject to a full assessment. Officer 1 also confirmed any application for a vehicle crossover would not be delayed by the need to change the parking restrictions. But the Council would need to propose and advertise changes to the parking bay as part of the next parking review which was in 2021. As the review was scheduled to go to the local committee in November 2021, the advertisement and changes on the ground would not take place until 2022.
  14. In November 2020 Mr X complained that having started the process in January 2019 he will have to wait until 2022 for the parking bay to be reduced so that he can install a vehicle crossover.
  15. In response the Council confirmed Mr X could apply for a vehicle crossover now and provided information on how to apply and the Council’s process. It reiterated that only the reduction of the parking bay needed to wait until the 2021 parking review as it would require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
  16. The Council noted that in order to assist with access to the vehicle crossover while the bay is still in place Officer 1 had offered to install a H-bar to draw attention to the crossover. There was normally a charge for installing H-bars, but as a gesture of goodwill Officer 1 had agreed to provide it free of charge.
  17. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He did not consider installing a vehicle crossover now, with a H-bar was a viable solution, and was concerned about vehicles blocking the crossover. Mr X stated he had already made a vehicle crossover application and paid the fees and felt it was unfair that he would have to wait four years to have the crossover installed.
  18. The Council advised it could find no record of Mr X applying for a vehicle crossover, or of him paying a fee. It had considered his request for changes to the parking bay as part of the parking review, which was free of charge. The Council noted Mr X’s view that Officer 1 should have assisted him more at the outset to enable his vehicle crossover. But considered the parking team and the local highways officer had taken appropriate steps to assist him and had gone beyond what is normally undertaken before a crossover application is received.
  19. It confirmed the proposal to remove the parking bay would have to be considered as part of the 2021 parking review and it could not propose any other solution for the parking bay to be removed now.
  20. In December 2020 Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover which the Council approved. Mr X asked the Council to confirm the approval for the crossover would also include the reduction of the parking bay outside his property. The Council referred Mr X to its vehicle crossover guidance for the next steps in this process. It also confirmed that to assist with access to his crossover it would paint a H-bar to highlight the dropped kerb while the parking bay was still in place.
  21. Although H-Bar lines are only advisory, the Council suggested, in its experience, people do not tend to park in front of dropped kerbs marked with a H-bar. The Council also confirmed that the parking bay would be in place until 2022 as the changes must be approved by the local committee as part of the parking review process.
  22. The Council subsequently confirmed it would paint the H-bar by the end of May 2021 and that it would be white, as an advisory marking.
  23. Mr X remains unhappy with the situation and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He asserts the Council failed to provide him with correct advice on how to apply for a vehicle crossover and resizing of on-street parking. He also asserts the system is unwieldly and has led to an unfair delay in his application.
  24. In response to my enquiries the Council disputes that Mr X received incorrect or misleading information regarding the processes for obtaining a vehicle crossover and removing the parking bay outside his property. It also disputes there has been any delay in determining if the parking bay in front of Mr X’s property could be reduced and a vehicle crossover installed.
  25. Vehicle crossover applications and parking reviews are different processes and are managed by different teams within the Council. The Council states Mr X did not apply for a vehicle crossover in 2019 but contacted the Council for advice on whether a crossover would be granted due to the parking bays. The Council acknowledges its response thanked Mr X for his application to construct a vehicle crossover, and states this was an administrative error. However, the remainder of the response made it clear that the bays would need to be removed before a crossover would be granted. The Council set out the process for making parking review requests.
  26. The Council considered Mr X’s request in the 2020 parking review, and Officer 1 explained to Mr X why his request was unsuccessful. Officer 1 then responded to Mr X’s correspondence and plans with regard to the impact a new vehicle crossover would have on the on-street parking. The Council states Officer 1 was not assessing Mr X’s request for a vehicle crossover and reminded Mr X that the highways team determined crossover applications.
  27. It is the Council’s standard process to only assess the suitability of a vehicle crossover once it has received an application. However, in this case, at Officer 1’s request, a highways officer carried out an assessment before Mr X had submitted an application.
  28. The Council states that single parking bays are normally 5m long, and standard vehicle crossovers are symmetrical and at a right angle to the road. As it was not possible to retain a 5m bay and fit a crossover in front of Mr X’s property, the Council states it agreed to reduce the bay to 4.5m and designed an unsymmetrical crossover at a different angle.
  29. Having agreed a non- standard crossover was feasible the Council advised Mr X he could apply for a crossover. It also clearly set out the process for reducing the parking bay as part of the 2021 parking review.
  30. The Council states it is not possible to install a yellow line parking restriction in front of Mr X’s property pending the parking review. As with other changes to parking bays, this would require a Traffic Regulation Order. It has reiterated that as a gesture of goodwill it will install a H-bar free of charge. Although H-bars are advisory markings and have no legal standing, they may deter people from parking in front of a vehicle crossover.

Analysis

  1. The Council has clear policies and procedures for requesting vehicle crossovers and for requesting changes to parking controls. These are separate processes operated by different teams within the Council. There is no evidence the Council gave Mr X incorrect or misleading information about either process.
  2. In response to Mr X’s initial contact, the Council correctly advised Mr X of the process to request the removal/ reduction of the parking bays.
  3. Officer 1 advised Mr X of the outcome of his request to the 2020 parking review, and then responded to Mr X’s suggestions to reduce rather than remove the parking bay. Mr X asserts Officer 1 should have offered guidance and suggested solutions which would have allowed him to install a vehicle crossover. This is not Officer 1’s role. It is clear from Officer 1’s correspondence with Mr X that his advice related to the position and minimum length of on-street parking bays. Officer 1 confirmed in February 2020 and again in September 2020 that he/ the parking team were not involved in vehicle crossover applications or assessments.
  4. The Council’s guidance sets out the process for applying for a vehicle crossover and the criteria against which it will be assessed. The first stage of the process is to apply for a site suitability survey, which incurs a non-refundable fee of £125. There is no provision in this process to request an assessment or advice prior to applying.
  5. Notwithstanding this, a highways officer visited Mr X’s property and assessed the feasibility of installing a vehicle crossover. Mr X has since applied for and been granted a vehicle crossover based on the officer’s design. There is no evidence the Council provided incorrect or misleading information about the process to apply for a vehicle crossover.
  6. Nor is there any evidence of delay in this process. Mr X applied for a vehicle crossover in December 2020 and the Council carried out a suitability assessment and confirmed approval in principle in January 2021. In March 2021 the Council confirmed Mr X could arrange for the approved contractors to carry out the work.
  7. Having constructed his driveway and new vehicle crossover Mr X does not want to wait until 2022 for the removal of the parking bays. Mr X considers the parking review process is too long and unwieldly and wants the Council to reduce the parking bay and paint a yellow line this summer. While I recognise Mr X’s frustration with the situation, we would not expect the Council to consider Mr X’s request outside of its established parking review process.
  8. The Council assessed over 130 application for changes to parking restrictions in the last review, and even more in the previous review. Given the volume of requests it receives and the legal process it must follow to make any amendments we would expect the Council to have and to follow a published procedure.
  9. As H-bars are advisory markings with no legal standing, the Council can introduce these markings outside of the parking review. The Council has offered to paint a H-bar across Mr X’s vehicle access, at no cost to him, to deter people from parking there until the bay is removed. This may not offer Mr X the security he would like when parking his vehicle on his drive, but I consider it an appropriate interim measure.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is no evidence the Council gave Mr X incorrect or misleading information about the process for requesting vehicle crossovers or for requesting changes to parking control. Nor is there any evidence of delay.

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