Summary: Mr B complained the Council should take action regarding drivers blocking his drive, and parking on double yellow lines near his home. We found the Council was unclear in its responses. The Council has agreed our proposed remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has failed to take enforcement action against motorists who park on double yellow lines and block the pavement and his driveway. He says that drivers regularly block him in and have been abusive towards him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complained to the Council in January 2020 that drivers regularly parked on yellow lines near his home and parked blocking his drive, while using a bank. He said the Council should patrol the area and take enforcement action.
6. The Council replied that it did patrol and issued penalty charge notices (PCNs) where officer noted conventions (parking on double yellow lines). But it said it must allow a grace period before issuing a PCN during which the driver often returned and drove off. The Council did not respond regarding drivers blocking the driveway.
7. Mr B wrote again referring to the Highway Code, rule 238 which states it is prohibited to park on double yellow lines at any time. Therefore, the Council should issue a PCN straightway. He also asked how he could get double yellow lines outside his home.
8. The Council replied saying it did patrol and gave some information about this. It explained how Mr B and other residents could seek double yellow lines by petition.
9. Mr B pursued his complaints that the Council should not allow a grace period and stated that drivers parked as near as possible to the bank, on yellow lines and often parking across driveways or on verges.
10. In the Council’s responses it explained in more detail why it allowed a grace period. In its final response it referred to legislation set by the Traffic Management Act 2004: “This states that, for a civil enforcement officer (CEO) to enforce against vehicles parking on single or double yellow lines, an observation period must be applied. The observation period allows motorists to load/unload on single and double yellow lines, and this is permitted in law. If a motorist returns to their vehicle before this observation period has been completed or is observed loading/unloading, then enforcement action cannot take place.”
11. The Council considered that it was acting in accordance with the relevant legislation. It did not respond regarding Mr B’s point that drivers often parked in front of driveways.
12. In my enquiries to the Council, I asked why it had not responded to Mr B’s complaint about drivers blocking his drive. It appeared that the Council was not aware of its powers under section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This power enables a local authority to issue a PCN if a vehicle is blocking a dropped kerb. The Council’s website also says in the section “Report Street Problems” in relation to parking on dropped kerbs, “if there’s something stopping you from exiting your driveway you should report it to the Police by calling 101.” This too suggested the Council was unaware of its own powers under section 86.
13. The Council replied agreeing that it could have handled Mr B’s enquiries  differently and provided more information. The Council recognises that it has enforcement powers under section 86 of the Traffic Management Act. However, it says that it must also consider the implications of Section 86 carefully. It says “Section 86 (3) identifies an exception where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent of the occupier of the premises. Therefore, section 86 (3) creates a difficulty for Civil Enforcement Officers in identifying a contravention because many residents in Maidstone do use the highway to park, in addition to their own drives.” The Council recognised that it should have explained this more clearly to Mr B.
14. In response to the information on its website the Council says “Civil Parking Enforcement teams are unable to provide a rapid response intervention to public calls against individual vehicle contraventions. Where residents are having difficulty exiting a driveway, they are referred to Kent Police as they have retained powers to deal with highway obstruction and are resourced accordingly.”

Analysis

15. I have considered the Council’s responses regarding observation periods, by CEOs when considering issuing a PCN for parking on double yellow lines. I do not consider there is fault by the Council here. The Council has explained that picking up and setting down passengers and loading/ unloading is permissible. This is described in the Highway Code rule 247. While there is no set observation time, the Council says its policy is to observe for 5 minutes. It also says its officers cannot make a judgement as to why a vehicle is parked outside a bank and cannot assume that no loading or unloading activity is taking place without having the evidence to support the facts of the case.
16. The Council has explained it is aware of its powers under section 86 of the TMA 2004 regarding dropped kerbs being blocked. However, there are some difficulties in implementing this which it has detailed. It has also explained why its website generally refers residents to the Police. While I recognise that there may be difficulties for CEO’s in identifying this contravention, I consider the Council should remind officers of their power to issue a PCN when they do find sufficient evidence that this is without the occupier’s consent.
17. In relation to the Council’s response to Mr B complaint about cars that block his driveway and others, I find the Council is at fault as it did not respond to this point when Mr B raised it twice.

Agreed action

18. I recommended that within 6 weeks of my decision the Council
• Apologises to Mr B for failing to respond to his complaint about cars blocking his drive and explain the exceptions to section 86.
• Reminds CEO’s of their powers to issue a PCN under section 86 where they do identify a contravention.
19. The Council has agreed.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have found fault causing injustice. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman