Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to exclude his address from a residential parking zone. Mr Y submitted a petition to the Council, but local Councillors refused his request for an amendment to the existing parking zone. There is no fault in the way the Council made its decision and we do not uphold the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains about the Council’s decision to exclude his home address from a resident’s parking zone.
2. He also complains that Councillors were not given the opportunity to review the ‘Parking Stress Survey’ report, and so their decision to maintain the parking scheme in its current form was flawed.
3. Mr Y says he has suffered injustice because he is expected to park in an unsafe car park or some distance away in another residential street.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the Council’s actions following the submission of Mr Y’s petition for an amendment to the existing parking zone. I have not investigated the making of the original Traffic Order which excluded Mr Y from parking on his road for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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

8. During my investigation, I have:
• Considered any information submitted by Mr Y as well as the notes of a telephone conversation Mr Y had with my colleague;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• Consulted the relevant law and guidance around residential parking restrictions and Traffic Regulation Orders; and
• Issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislative background

9. Before introducing a residential parking zone councils must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or Traffic Management Order (TMO) in accordance with the Regulations made by Parliament. (Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996).
10. The Council operates a ‘petition scheme’ whereby residents living in the Council’s area can lobby local support and raise concerns. By doing so, residents have the opportunity to influence decisions made by the Council. This could include decisions about eligibility for residential parking permits.

What happened

11. The Council operates a number of different parking zones. To be eligible to park within those zones, residents must have a valid parking permit. The Council will refuse applications for a parking permit if the resident does not live within the eligible area.
12. Mr Y currently lives in a flat within one of the Council’s parking zones. I will call this ‘zone one’. The road Mr Y lives on is a main road, and parking on this road is only available to those who ‘pay and display’ or have a valid permit for ‘zone two’. Mr Y’s zone one permit allows him to park on his road for two hours only (08:00 – 10:00). Outside of these hours Mr Y’s permit allows him to park in three of the town-centre car parks. Otherwise Mr Y may park on any residential roads which are not subject to parking controls.
13. The Council’s constitution allows for residents to submit petitions for consideration by Councillors. To be a valid petition, the Council insists on a minimum of 20 or more names, addresses and signatures of those who work, live or study in the Council’s area.
14. Mr Y submitted a petition to the Council in December 2016. It contained the signatures and details of 23 other residents who, like Mr Y, wanted to be eligible for permits in zone two. Mr Y wanted the Council to amend the original TRO.
15. The Council presented Mr Y’s petition in a hearing held on 15 March 2017. The hearing was attended by the Chairman, four Ward Councillors and two officers.
16. The officer made the following recommendations in their report to Councillors:
• For a meeting with the petitioners and the Cabinet member to discuss their request.
• Subject to the outcome of that discussion, officers will undertake a parking stress survey to establish parking capacity in the nearby roads. Officers will report back to Ward Councillors and the Cabinet Member with their results.
17. The minutes of the hearing show agreement with the recommendations. The Cabinet Member noted, “the petitioners were informed that parking surveys in the area would need to take place before any changes were made to the scheme, and a consultation of local residents would also be required”.
18. Twelve months after the petition hearing, officers emailed Councillors with the survey results attached. The survey shows little parking stress in zone two, with over 180 parking spaces available at the time of each visit. The officer explained that zone one includes 173 eligible properties, but there are only 64 valid permits currently in use. The officer therefore pointed out that zone one permit-holders, “... could in theory be accommodated in [zone two]”.
19. But went on to explain, “However, if residents of the flats are allowed to park in the nearby [zone two] there is a chance that the number of residents applying for a permit will increase. Additionally, there is also a possibility that the residents parking bays in the roads closest to [Mr Y’s road] will be parked to capacity mainly be residents of the flats”.
20. Five Councillors responded as follows:

“I would like the present arrangements to stand as parking from houses will increase and my fear is that if changes were carried out there would be no future capacity in the surrounding streets”

“I think it is likely that if residents are allowed [zone two] permits there will be an increase in the uptake. The overall survey does show low parking stress but those roads nearest [Mr Y’s road] should [sic] as [road name removed] are highly stressed. In some of the other roads I know from my local knowledge the picture improves the further away from [Mr Y’s road] that you get. I would therefore not support any change to the current arrangements”

“I agree with my fellow Cllrs and do not support any changes to the current arrangements”

“I agree with Councillor [name removed] comments and I do not support any change in the existing arrangements”

“I agree with the Cllrs and do not support any change”

21. In October 2018 one of the five Councillors who had responded to the officer’s previous email in March received an email from Mr Y, which she forwarded to the officer for comment. The officer reiterated the results of the survey and relayed again the views shared by the Councillors previously. The Councillor responded:

“we all three councillors have now contacted [Mr Y] to say we are supporting the current system. We support officer’s recommendations. We feel their [sic] is not enough resident support for change”

22. The Council decided not to proceed with Mr Y’s petition to include his property in zone two and did not therefore begin a consultation to amend the existing TRO.
23. Mr Y complained about the process followed by the Council when making this decision, and later approached the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr Y?

24. Mr Y feels that residents living in his area are treated differently, depending on the type of property they live in. He says the Council expects residents in Mr Y’s location to park in an unsafe car park or walk a significant distance to find alternative on-street parking.
25. I appreciate Mr Y is feels frustrated as a result of his exclusion from zone two. However, the Ombudsman cannot make findings based on fairness, nor can be question the merits of decisions made by the Council. We can only question decisions if there is evidence of procedural fault undermining that decision.
26. Mr Y says there is evidence of procedural fault. This is because he says the Council has ignored the findings of the survey, which revealed little stress on the availability of on-street parking in the surrounding roads. He also says that Councillors made their decision not to uphold Mr Y’s petition without having sight of the survey results.
27. The petition hearing concluded without reaching a decision either way about Mr Y’s proposal. Instead, those at the hearing decided that further work needed to be done in order to reach an informed decision. I do not agree that this is evidence of pre-determination, as Mr Y suggests. As Mr Y points out, there was then a significant period before the Council completed the survey. However, I am not persuaded that this delay had any impact on the subsequent decision.
28. Based on the records seen, it is clear that Councillors were emailed a copy of the survey results along with the officer’s explanation. Mr Y disagrees. He says one Councillor later confirmed that they had not seen the results. However, on reviewing the email chain, it is clear the Councillor in question responded to confirm they did not support any change to the existing parking arrangements. In fact, all of those who responded agreed unanimously that zone two should not be amended as per Mr Y’s petition. None of the Councillors indicated that they were unable to access the attached survey results.
29. I am therefore satisfied the Council followed the correct process and that Councillors made an informed decision about Mr Y's petition. There is no evidence of procedural fault and I will not question the merits of the Council’s decision to maintain the current parking zones.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I have not investigated

30. I have not investigated the making of the original Traffic Order because this happened some years before Mr Y’s complaint to the Ombudsman. The evidence I have seen shows that Mr Y was aware of the order from at least 2015 when he started to raise concerns with the Council. The law says we should only investigate matters which the person affected has been aware of within the past 12 months, unless there is good reason to exercise our discretion to extend the scope of the investigation. Based on the evidence seen, there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman