Summary: Ms X complains about unnecessary vehicle restrictions for loading bays near her house and poor highway signage. She says these restrict her ability to maintain her property as contractors cannot park in peak periods and the signage encourages cyclists to cycle in the wrong direction on the path. She also complains about poor communication. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision to maintain the current restrictions on afternoon loading times, and the signage is in line with highway regulations. There were some delays in responding to her concerns. The Council has already apologised for this and agreed to review its procedures. This is an appropriate remedy for this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about unnecessary vehicle restrictions for loading bays near her house and poor highway signage. She says the restrictions mean contractors cannot park during afternoon peak hours affecting her ability to maintain her property, and poor signage encourages cyclists to cycle in the wrong direction on the path. She further complains about poor communication which she says has caused her inconvenience and distress. She wants the Council to lift the afternoon loading restrictions and erect clearer signage.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
5. I considered information the Council sent to us.
6. Ms X had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered her comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

Traffic Regulation Orders and signage regulations

7. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out the legal framework relating to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO). These orders allow councils to introduce and enforce parking restrictions.
8. The procedure councils must follow to implement a TRO is set out in regulations. A council will often carry out a preliminary consultation before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making a TRO.
9. The council must publicise the proposal in a local newspaper. It must also “take such other steps as it considers appropriate” to ensure adequate publicity.This may include directly notifying people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement.
10. Any person can object in writing within 21 days of the publication of the proposal and councils must consider any objections made.
11. After the Order is made, the council must publicise the details in a local newspaper within 14 days.
12. Highway regulations set out the design and conditions of use for traffic signs to be lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland and Wales. These regulations include instructions for loading bays and cycle lanes.

The Council’s complaints procedure

13. The Council has a complaints procedure to support the effective handling of complaints. The procedure says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. It then has two stages:
• Stage 1 – a full response will be provided to the complaint within 15 working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied and wishes to escalate the complaint to Stage 2, they must tell the Council the reasons why. The Council will consider the request and write to confirm if they will accept it within 10 working days;
• Stage 2 – If considered appropriate, an investigation and full Stage 2 response will be provided within 30 working days of the decision to start the Stage 2 investigation.

What happened

14. In 2015, the Council completed works to improve the street scene and general layout of a major road and junction in Ms X’s neighbourhood.
15. The new layout included changes to loading/parking bays near Ms X’s property and the existing two-way cycle path was changed to a one-way cycle path in-bound towards the city centre.
16. Once completed, the Council completed a road safety audit. The audit aimed to ensure the developed scheme was safe for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
17. The safety audit recommended the loading/parking bays in the road be completely removed, to prevent a “pinch point” for cyclists and pedestrians, which could lead to collisions.
18. During 2017, the Council held preliminary consultations with the public to discuss issues raised in the road safety audit. Ms X met with a Council officer to express her views.
19. Following the consultations, the Council proposed a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to implement changes to the layout and conditions of use of the bays. It proposed disallowing parking altogether and marking the bays loading only. Loading would continue to be restricted during morning and afternoon peak hours, to facilitate safe use of the cycle path during these times. It advertised the proposal in the local paper and invited comments and objections from the general public.
20. Ms X made a formal objection to the proposal. She said she welcomed the proposal to stop parking and accepted the loading restrictions during morning peak hours. However, she said she objected to the maintenance of loading restrictions during afternoon peak hours. She said the restrictions were unjustified as now the cycle path was in-bound only, cyclists rarely used the cycle path at these times.
21. In March 2018, the Council considered all comments and objections received, including Ms X’s objection. It said the proposed changes were minor amendments based on the findings of the post construction safety audit. It said the afternoon restrictions would remain, as these had been agreed following the initial scheme consultation. It agreed to improve signage to make it clearer the cycle lane was now meant for in-bound cycling only. The Council approved the TRO without any further amendments. It publicised details of the approved TRO in the local paper.
22. Ms X contacted the Council to query the decision. She asked the Council to explain the rationale for maintaining the afternoon loading restrictions, given the cycle path allowed in-bound cycling only, so was rarely used during afternoon peak times.
23. The Council acknowledged her email but did not fully respond until over 7 weeks later in May 2018. In its response it apologised for the delay. It said although it accepted that more cyclists used the cycle lane during the morning peak hours, the restrictions ‘also allow for use during the evening peak. Whilst the volume of cyclists is greater during the morning peak than in the afternoon peak, restrictions still provide a valuable facility for cyclists’. It said it also planned to implement additional signage highlighting the cycle path was for cycling in an in-bound direction only.
24. Ms X remained dissatisfied with this response.
25. In June 2018, she made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained the Council had not fully answered her questions and there was unacceptable delay in responding to her initial email in March. She asked the Council to provide a full response to her questions and said if the Council was unable to provide legitimate justification for maintaining the afternoon restrictions on the loading bays, it should remove them. The Council acknowledged her complaint and replied saying it would respond within 15 working days.
26. Ms X contacted the Council after 16 working days. She said it had not responded to her complaint within 15 working days and because of this, asked it to escalate her complaint to Stage 2. I have seen evidence of this, but the Council said it had no record of a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in July 2018.
27. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint later that afternoon. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said that the afternoon restrictions allowed for the cycle path to be used during the afternoon peak, which was in line with the Council’s commitment to reduce pollution levels and encourage more cyclists along that section of the highway network. It acknowledged the road was very busy and subject to competing demands from various user groups and stakeholders. The responding officer offered to meet with her to discuss the issues further, and Ms X accepted this invitation.
28. Ms X says she remained dissatisfied after receiving the response. However, there is no evidence she contacted the Council again to request escalation of her complaint based on dissatisfaction with the response received.
29. The Council contacted Ms X to ask permission to erect street signage on her wall. Ms X replied to say she agreed in principle but did not agree for it to be erected until her complaint was fully resolved.
30. In August 2018, the Council officer met with Ms X to discuss her concerns. Ms X says the officer agreed to discuss her comments and possible amendments to the TRO with elected Council members, when they next met with them.
31. In October 2018, Ms X wrote to the Council officer. She said since the meeting in August, she had heard nothing further from them. She asked for an update on their further discussions related to the restricted afternoon loading times.
32. The Council officer responded to say they had discussed the matter on several occasions with Council members. They said there was no plan to amend the TRO at this stage, but the Council would review its success once it had completed further work in the area.
33. In January 2019, Ms X contacted the Council again. She asked why the Council has not responded to her request in July 2018 to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. She said it was unacceptable that the Council still had not resolved her complaint.
34. The Council said it had no record of her request to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 in July 2018. It agreed her request to now review her complaint at Stage 2.
35. The Council responded to her Stage 2 complaint in February 2019. It said residents and cycling groups had been consulted as part of the process. Following consultation, the Council had decided to keep the afternoon restrictions to the loading bays to allow full shared use of the space by cyclists and pedestrians during peak times. Although it accepted that she did not agree with the restrictions, it said this was not enough for the Council to change its position.
36. Ms X remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. In addition to her complaint about the afternoon loading restrictions, she said the signage erected was unclear, and encouraged cyclists to cycle the wrong way down the cycle path.

Analysis

37. The Council carried out the consultation process in line with the procedures set out in regulations. It carried out preliminary consultations. It advertised the proposed TRO and invited comments and objections. As part of its decision making it considered the recommendations in the road safety audit, results of previous consultations and comments and objections received as part of the formal consultation exercise. It decided to make the TRO as advertised without significant amendments. It then publicised the TRO in line with the procedure.
38. 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. The Council followed the correct procedure to make the TRO and considered Ms X’s comments appropriately. There was no fault in how it made the decision, so I cannot criticise the decision it has made.
39. Ms X says she requested the Council escalate her complaint to Stage 2 in July 2018. The email record showed she requested escalation in July 2018 because the Council had not responded at stage one within 15 working days. The Council then sent her a complaint response later that day, one day outside its timescale. I would not have expected the Council to consider the complaint at stage two without receiving feedback, or a further request, from Ms X after it sent her the stage one response. The Council is therefore not at fault.
40. The Council has accepted there was an unacceptable delay in responding to her concerns between March and May 2018, and in general it had not always been timely in its responses. It has apologised to her for this, both within its email correspondence and in the Stage 2 complaint response. The Stage 2 response also said it would feed this back to the service area for consideration in order to improve its service. This is an appropriate remedy for this part of the complaint.
41. Although Ms X says the area would benefit from clearer signage, the current signage indicating loading bay restrictions and the one-way flow of the cycle lane is in line with the regulations. The Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault, but the Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman