Summary: Mr B rents a garage from the Council. He complains that it failed to consult tenants before removing parking enforcement in 2016 and failed to monitor and enforce parking in the area since then. He also says the Council wrongly issued him with notices to quit. We have not investigated these complaints because they are outside our jurisdiction. Mr B also complains that the Council completed a flawed consultation on a Traffic Regulation Order. We find the Council was at fault in that it put an incorrect response date in its consultation letter and put up notices late. However, these faults did not cause Mr B a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• failed to consult with garage tenants before removing parking enforcement in 2016;
• failed to monitor and enforce parking in the area since then;
• wrongly issued him with notices to quit his garage tenancy; and
• completed a flawed consultation on a Traffic Regulation Order in January 2020.
2. Mr B says he has regularly been unable to use his garage because of parked vehicles blocking access so he considers it unreasonable for the Council to charge the garage tenants rent. He says the parking also causes problems for emergency vehicles and refuse collections.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr B’s complaint that the Council completed a flawed consultation on a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in January 2020. The process was managed by the Council acting as local traffic authority. So, this aspect of Mr B’s complaint is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

8. Mr B lives in a block of Council flats. He also has the tenancy of a carriage on the estate. There are parking spaces on the estate intended for use by residents. Parking was monitored and enforced by a private contractor but in April 2016 the contractor withdrew from the contract because of new legislation which prevented it obtaining information on vehicle keepers from the DVLA to levy charges. Following this, parking was not enforced resulting in complaints from garage tenants about unauthorised parking preventing them accessing their garages.
9. In 2018 the Council decided the best way to resolve the issues would be to monitor and enforce parking on the land itself. In February 2019 it held informal discussions with the Tenants and Residents Association (TARA) about the possibility of introducing a parking scheme. If the proposal was implemented the Council’s parking services would enforce the parking restrictions via a TRO. The TARA agreed to the proposal and the next steps were for the Council to draw up a TRO for approval by legal services and consult residents and members of the public on the proposal.
10. In April 2019 the Council served Mr B with a notice to quit after he failed to pay rent on the garage for several months. Mr B complained saying he was often unable to use his garage because of people parking in front of it.
11. The Council responded explaining it was in the process of drawing up a TRO and that, in future, vehicles parked in the car parks would require a permit. It explained this may take up to 12 months to be fully implemented. It agreed to waive Mr B’s overdue rent payments but advised him not to withhold rent in future as this would result in a further notice to quit being served.
12. Mr B continued to withhold rent payments on the garage and the Council issued further notices to quit in August 2019 and December 2019.
13. On 29 January 2020 the Council sent letters to 600 residents consulting on the proposed introduction of a residents’ parking permit scheme backed by a TRO. The letter set out details of the proposal and gave residents an opportunity to comment and/or object. The Council also placed notices in the car park areas and a notice in a local paper explaining the proposal and how to comment. It also notified statutory consultees including local councillors, the police, fire and ambulance services about the proposal. The Council received 25 responses: 20 supporting the proposal and 5 objecting.
14. Officers prepared a report for the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport who was responsible for reaching a decision on the proposal. The report described the measures proposed to deal with the parking issues and set out the objections received together with officers’ responses. The Cabinet Member was asked to decide on the proposal taking into account the objections and officer’s comments.
15. In February 2020 the Council issued Mr B with a further notice to quit. He complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

16. The Council has the power to make a TRO under section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
17. The procedures for creating a TRO are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’).
18. The Regulations require a council to consult with various bodies, such as the police, depending on the nature of the proposed TRO. They also require the publication of a notice in a local newspaper. A council must also take ‘such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people it thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement.
19. The Council complied with the Regulations by consulting affected residents and displaying 16 street notices in the car park areas. It also placed an advert in a local newspaper and consulted statutory consultees.
20. Mr B says the Council’s letter of 29 January 2020 wrongly stated that responses should be submitted by 20 January 2020 instead of 20 February 2020. He also says some of the signs attached to lamp posts were not put up until 3 February 2020 giving residents less than the required 21 days to respond. He raised these issues at the time and they were referred to in the report for the Cabinet Member.
21. The Council accepts its letter contained an incorrect response date and that some of the notices were put up a few days late but says this does not make the consultation invalid. It says it extended the closing date for responses and publicised this.
22. The Regulations state, “Any person may object to the making of an order by the date specified in the notice of proposals or, if later, the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the order making authority has complied with all the [publicity] requirements”. So, even if a council requests responses within a period of less than 21 days, members of the public still have 21 days to respond. Officers did not submit the report to the Cabinet Member until after the expiry of 21 days so residents were given a full opportunity to respond.
23. We must consider whether the administrative fault by the Council caused Mr B a significant injustice. I do not consider this to be the case because he submitted his comments on the proposal and they were included in the officer’s report for the Cabinet Member.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I find the Council was at fault in that the consultation letter contained an incorrect response date and the signs were put up late. However these errors did not cause Mr B a significant injustice.
25. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaints that the Council:
• failed to consult tenants before removing parking enforcement in 2016;
• has failed to monitor and enforce parking in the area since then; and
• wrongly issued notices to quit.
27. The Council has been managing car parking on the estate, including the employment of a parking contractor, in its capacity as landlord. It also manages garage tenancies in its capacity as landlord.
28. Mr B’s complaints about parking enforcement and the management of his garage tenancy are therefore outside our jurisdiction because they concern the management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider.
29. It is open to Mr B to complain about these issues to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman