Telford & Wrekin Council (19 002 137)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 28 Aug 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to remove white line road markings from the dropped kerb to their driveway. There was some fault in the Council’s consultation process, but Mr and Mrs X did not suffer any significant injustice.
The complaint
- Mr and Mrs X complained the Council removed a white line ‘H’ bar road marking from outside their home without providing reasons. This has resulted in reduced access to and from their driveway. In addition, the deeds to their home need them to allow access for services such as electricity, sewerage and drainage and they said this was not considered by the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
- The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
- Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
- The Council’s White ‘H’ Road Markings procedure
- The Traffic Signs Manual 2018 (chapter 5)
- The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (section 122)
- Mr and Mrs X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision and I considered any comments made before making a final decision.
What I found
- The Council can provide white ‘H’ road markings across dropped kerbs in order to help prevent vehicles blocking private driveways.
- The purpose of the markings is to alert drivers to the fact there is a private access point which must be clear. The markings are not legally enforceable but may help to discourage inconsiderate parking.
What happened
- The Council agreed to provide ‘H’ markings in front of Mr and Mrs X’s driveway in 2008 after they told the Council their driveway was being blocked. They said they needed access to comply with the deeds to their home and because of their medical conditions.
- In December 2017 a neighbour (person A) contacted the Council and raised concerns that Mr and Mrs X repainted the ‘H’ markings without permission. Mr and Mrs X said they repainted the markings after utility works had partly removed them.
- A Council engineer met with person A on 19 December 2017 and person A asked the Council to remove the markings.
- In its internal communications, the Council engineer agreed that the markings had been repainted without permission. However, he said person A’s concerns were the result of a neighbour dispute which did not relate to the issue of the ‘H’ markings.
- On 19 December 2017 the Council engineer wrote to person A to inform them the Council would write to other residents and ask for their views on the markings. It would only remove the markings if there was no support for them to remain.
- On 12 February 2018 the Council wrote to residents near Mr and Mrs X and asked them whether they would like the markings removing or kept.
- The Council received five responses, including one from a resident not included in the consultation. Of the responses received, three were in favour of removing the markings, one was in favour of keeping them and one resident was neither in favour of the markings or opposed to them.
- On 30 May 2018 the Council sent an e-mail to Mr X to inform him there was no mutually agreeable solution. It said as a result of the consultation process the markings were to remain in place. It also said the markings would be refreshed when the lining crew were in the area later in the year.
- Person A contacted the Council by e-mail on 30 August 2018 to raise concerns about the Council’s contractors trying to repaint the markings the previous day. They provided the Council with further details of the current neighbour dispute and asked the Council to reconsider the concerns they had raised previously.
- The Council met with person A on 25 October 2018 and proposed to shorten the markings. Person A declined this solution.
- On the same day, the Council also met Mr and Mrs X and another neighbour to discuss the dispute.
- Internal communications within the Council show the Council took the decision to remove the markings as it felt this was the best way to resolve the neighbourhood dispute.
- The Council removed the markings on 26 October 2018, and it wrote to residents on the same day to tell them of its decision. It said the markings were not legally enforceable, but vehicles must not obstruct the driveway. The police could help if that occurred.
- Mr and Mrs X were unhappy the Council changed its original decision without good reason, and they made a complaint on 26 November 2018.
- On 2 January 2019 the Council provided its stage one complaint response. It said that when it repainted the markings this worsened a current neighbour dispute and it decided to remove the markings to ease the issue. It also said the removal of the markings had not resulted in any loss of access to the property, as the Highway code still applied to vehicles causing an obstruction.
- Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure on 17 January 2019.
- The Council provided its stage two response on 20 February 2019. It confirmed the findings of its stage one complaint response and stated that it was not possible to reach a consensus whether it removed the markings or refreshed them. It therefore said it would not take more action about the markings.
- Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and brought their complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 May 2019.
Council response to my enquiries
- The Council said it viewed Mr and Mrs X’s deeds and fully considered their concerns about access to their property. It also said there were no concerns from the owner of the sub-station about access.
- It said there are no other ‘H’ markings on the close.
- It said that it reserves the right to review all road markings in the borough and can decide to refresh or remove them as it sees fit.
Analysis
- When the Council received a complaint from person A its engineer recorded it was about a neighbour dispute rather than the purpose of the markings. The objections which the resident raised were not relevant highways considerations.
- The Council informally consulted on the markings and decided to keep them. As it was taking no action, it decided not to inform residents of its decision. Mr and Mrs X requested an update and the Council informed them of its decision, but it did not inform the other residents it had consulted. That was fault, but it did not cause any injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
- The Council re-opened its consultation after it received a further complaint from person A. In order to resolve the neighbour dispute, the Council decided to remove the markings. It told resident A about its decision the evening beforehand, but it opted not to give advanced warning to Mr and Mrs X or the other residents and instead sent them a letter by e-mail on the morning the works were carried out. The Council took this decision because it did not want the dispute to flare up again. Whilst we understand this decision, it meant the process was not open and transparent. That was fault, but it did not cause any injustice to Mr and Mrs X as they were informed later.
- The Council removed the white line because it thought it would help ease the neighbour dispute. It can consider all information it deems relevant when making decisions and the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision which is properly made. The Council did consider all relevant information and it did consider alternate courses of action. On the evidence seen, there was no fault in the Council’s decision.
- The Ombudsman cannot ask the Council to repaint the markings, as it was entitled to remove them.
- The removal of the ‘H’ markings has not resulted in any loss of access to Mr and Mrs X’s property, as the markings are not legally enforceable, and they can inform the police if there is an obstruction. That was the case even with the markings in place. The fault in the consultation process has not resulted in any significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
- As a gesture of goodwill, the Council has offered to refund Mr and Mrs X’s application fee for the ‘H’ markings at the current rate of £42.
Final decision
- There was some fault in the Council’s consultation process, but Mr and Mrs X did not suffer any significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman