Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install a H-bar marking on the road by Mrs X’s property. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council's proposed ‘keep clear’ (H-bar marking) outside a neighbouring property would extend 3cm beyond the legal width of the Right of Way and onto the boundary of her property. She also believes the proposal is unreasonable because it would remove her only available parking space. Mrs X says the matter has caused her significant anxiety and distress. She wants the Council to either cancel the proposed road marking or limit it to the surveyed legal width, with no infringement onto her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a request to install a H-bar marking on the public highway by Mrs X's property. Mrs X objected to the request and raised concerns about the width of the proposed marking, its impact on her property, and the loss of parking.
6. The Council considered Mrs X's concerns and the evidence she provided. It also sought legal advice, carried out site visits, took measurements, considered reports of obstructive parking, consulted local residents, and assessed the proposal's impact within the conservation area, before deciding a H-bar marking was appropriate. It acknowledged the proposed marking would be approximately 3cm wider than the measured access but considered this to be within acceptable tolerances and not detrimental.
7. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Based upon the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the relevant information, including Mrs X's objections and supporting evidence, before deciding it was appropriate to go ahead with installing the proposed road markings. This is a decision it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint; this is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman