Summary: Dr Y complained about the how the Council introduced a traffic management scheme in her neighbourhood. We have not found the Council to be at fault. It correctly consulted with local residents prior to approving the scheme and has taken action to address parking issues outside Dr Y’s home.

The complaint

1. Dr Y complains the Council failed to follow a proper consultation process before introducing a traffic management scheme in the area where she lives.
2. She says this led to increased congestion outside her home and school traffic regularly blocking her driveway. This prevents her leaving her home causing significant inconvenience. She says the Council has failed to carry out effective enforcement to deal with the displaced traffic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I read Dr Y’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent me.
7. I read the Council’s Cabinet Member Report relating to relating to the Scheme.
8. Dr Y and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s School Streets Scheme

9. The Council has introduced clean air zones, known as School Streets (the Scheme), around some schools in its area. This prevents non-residential traffic from entering designated zones (the Zone) around the time schools open and close.
10. Vehicles entering the zone within certain times receive a fixed penalty notice. Traffic enforcement cameras are used for this purpose.
11. The Council’s website explains that before a Scheme is introduced, the public will be consulted. A decision as to whether to proceed with the Scheme will then be made by the Council, taking into account the consultation responses received.

What happened

12. In 2022, the Council proposed the introduction of a Scheme around a local primary school. Dr Y lives just beyond the boundary of the Scheme. The Council consulted with local residents, including Dr Y. 67% of participants were in favour of the Scheme and it was approved in September 2022.
13. Dr Y was not told the scheme had been approved. The first she knew about it was when she saw cameras being installed. She says there were no details about the consultation available on the Council’s website.
14. Since the Scheme started, Dr X has encountered significant problems arising from displaced cars parking outside her home, often blocking her drive. She has suffered abuse when she has asked parents to move their cars. She says there is no deterrent because traffic wardens do not patrol the area.
15. Dr Y complained to the Council. She said the consultation was flawed because it failed to take account of her concerns that parents unable to drop of their children within the Zone would look to park as close as possible elsewhere. She also raised concerns about lack of parking enforcement patrols.
16. In response, the Council made the following points.
1. Where 50% of consultees support a proposal, it will generally be approved by the Council, as was this case here.
2. It planned to review the Scheme towards the end of the 2022/23 academic year.
3. It operated a proactive enforcement scheme where a car will be ticketed if seen parked outside Dr Y’s home. However, Dr Y would need to sign up to this.
4. It was at fault for sending notification letters after the cameras were installed. It apologised for this error.
5. All consultation responses were taken into consideration by the Council before making its decision to approve the Scheme. The Council said it received 54 responses.
17. Dissatisfied with this response, Dr Y brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She says the Scheme should be extended to include her address as this would prevent the parking issue. She says there is no logic to why the Zone ends where it does and does not include part of the road where she lives.

Analysis

18. 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.
19. The Council carried out the consultation process as we would expect, aside from the failure to notify residents before the cameras were installed. It invited comments from residents of affected properties, both inside and outside of the Zone. The results of the consultation were set out in the Cabinet Report that informed the Council’s decision. I can see the Council was aware of the dissenting views of Dr Y and others. It considered the reasons for objections but decided to approve the Scheme anyway. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
20. Once the Scheme was operational, the Council appropriately responded to Dr Y’s complaint and further explained why it had approved the Scheme. It also provided information about what action it would take to address the problem parking outside Dr Y’s home. In response to my enquiries, the Council has also provided data about parking enforcement officer patrols that have taken place over the period of one month. There have been 16 patrols over 8 days.
21. Based on the information provided by the Council, I am satisfied it is aware of the issues faced by Dr Y and has taken the type of action we would expect to see.
22. I appreciate current enforcement regime may not serve as an effective deterrent for some motorists. But the fact a parking problem persists is not, in itself, evidence of Council fault because it cannot be held responsible for inconsiderate drivers. It will also review the Scheme towards the end of this year, and the parking issues will be part of this.
23. Overall, I am satisfied the Council has responded appropriately to Dr X’s concerns, offered a range of possible solutions and is therefore not at fault.
24. Dr Y has also raised concerns about lack of transparency about the consultation. I can see the Council’s complaint response failed to include consultation data that had been promised. The Council has explained this was an administrative error and has now been provided to the Ombudsman. This will be shared with Dr Y. Whilst unfortunate, I do not consider this mistake to be significant enough for me to make a finding of fault. I have the same view about the failure to notify Dr Y and others about the consultation outcome. The Council has accepted this should not have happened and it was not possible to delay the camera installation as this was being carried out by third party contractors. The Council has already apologised for this, and I cannot add anything further.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council has also explained why the Council is unable to extend the Scheme to include Dr Y’s address. I am satisfied the Council, did not make an arbitrary decision about the boundary of the Zone, as suggested by Dr Y.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have not found the Council to be at fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman