Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to install a residents parking scheme near to his house. He says the Council refused to give him a parking permit on a discretionary basis. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communication. We find no fault with the Council’s decision to implement the TRO. We find some fault with the Council’s communication, but it did not cause any injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to install a residents parking scheme which includes a street near to his house. He says the Council refused to give him a parking permit on a discretionary basis. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communication with him. He says the Council refused to answer his questions and provided vague answers. Mr X says the Council did not take proper account of his rights and circumstances and that the Council’s behaviour amounts to harassment.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic Regulation Order

8. The procedures for creating a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
9. Regulation 6 states an authority will carry out a consultation before making an order.
10. The consultation process is covered under Regulation 7. It requires councils publish a notice in a local newspaper and for the council to make copies of the order available for inspection by the public. A council must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include displaying notices in the road affected by the order or delivering notices or letters to properties likely to be affected by any provision of the order.
11. Regulation 8 allows any person to object in writing within 21 days of the publication of the proposal. Regulation 13 requires a council to consider any objections made under Regulation 8.

Council’s complaints policy

12. The Council’s complaints policy sets out how the Council will investigate and respond to complaints. It also sets out the timescales for the Council to respond to complaints.
13. The policy notes that depending on the complexity, the time taken to resolve the complaint may vary. However, the Council will try to reach a resolution within 10 weeks of the complaint being received.

What happened

14. Mr X lives on Road A. Road A connects to two other roads, Road B and Road C.
15. In December 2017, the Council received a petition from residents of Road B and C. The petition asked the Council to introduce a RPS for the roads. The Council completed a consultation. All residents that replied to the consultation were in favour of an RPS. The Council decided to begin the process to introduce RPS to Road B and C.
16. In December 2018, the Council received a petition from residents of Road A. The petition asked the Council to extend its planned RPS for Road B and C to include Road A. Mr X was the lead petitioner. The Council did not include Road A into the proposals for a RPS as it was too late. The Council told Mr X it would treat the petition as a request for an RPS for Road A. The Council said it would consult the road if the proposed RPS for Road B and C came into operation.
17. In February 2019, the Council advertised its TRO proposal for a RPS in a local paper. The Council also placed notices along the affected and neighbouring streets, including in Road A.
18. The Council received eight objections to the proposed TRO, including from Mr X. All objections were from residents of Road A. The Council prepared a report outlining the objections to the proposal in September 2019.
19. The Council noted the objections had the same basic concern:
• that if the Council introduced a RPS for Road B and C, residents of Road A would be unable to park on those roads. Instead, residents would be restricted to parking either on Road A or other unrestricted roads further away.
20. The report also highlighted other objections raised by Mr X, these included:
• He was angry the Council had not included Road A in the consultation with Road B and C for the proposed RPS.
• The proposed RPS may reduce the community cohesion in the area as it was unfair to have a scheme on one road and not another.
• He had rear access onto Road B. A RPS would affect his ability to load or unload items to his back garden.
21. The Council noted Mr X would be able to stop in the proposed parking bays for as long as it took to load and unload items from his car to his back garden. The Council also said it intended to complete a further consultation with residents of Road A to see if there was sufficient support to propose a RPS for the road.
22. The Council decided to implement the TRO, introducing a RPS to Road B and C, after consideration of the objections.
23. In March 2020, Mr X contacted the Council to ask it suspend the RPS due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council said it would introduce the RPS at the end of March 2020. Mr X responded to the Council with concerns and questions about the scheme, including whether the Council would consider introducing timed restrictions.
24. In June 2020, the Council told Mr X it had not yet responded to his email as the relevant service had closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council said it would respond to Mr X as soon as possible.
25. Mr X chased the Council for a response at the beginning of August 2020. The Council responded to Mr X’s questions and concerns in mid-August 2020. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked the Council to respond further to his comments and questions.
26. In September 2020, Mr X chased the Council for a response to his comments and questions. The Council responded at the end of September 2020. The Council said it could consider issuing an exceptional permit and that it would complete a parking survey to gather information on the parking capacity of the roads before deciding this. The Council also advised Mr X it would not enter into any further correspondence with him until the completion of the parking survey. The Council completed the parking survey at the end of September 2020.
27. In October 2020, Mr X raised a complaint. The Council also told Mr X it was carrying out a parking survey of the area and would contact him once it had considered the results. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the end of October 2020.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it had considered whether to provide Mr X with an exceptional permit to park on Road B. The Council said it had decided not to for the following reasons:
• Only properties with a postal address are eligible for a permit. Mr X’s road, Road A, is not eligible.
• The parking survey showed there was some limited spare capacity overnight on the roads. However, the Council said it had to ensure it kept the capacity to accommodate visitors, essential services, and new resident vehicles.
• There were nine properties on Road A with rear alleyway pedestrian access to Road B. There were a further five properties on Road A with a boundary to Road C. If the Council were to provide an exceptional permit to Mr X, this would set a precedent and many other residents of Road A would ask for the same treatment.
29. The Council confirmed it would not issue exceptional permits but would hold a consultation about residents parking for Road A as soon as possible.
30. I asked Mr X to expand on why he felt the Council was harassing him. He explained he was just trying to go about his daily life without any interference. He said he had lived on Road A for over 20 years and had always used the alleyway that led to Road B. He said the Council stopping him from using Road B amounted to harassment.

Analysis

31. The evidence shows the Council followed the correct legal process to introduce the TRO which introduced the RPS for Road B and C. The Council appropriately gave notice of the proposed TRO and appropriately considered all objections received to the proposed TRO before making its decision.
32. As there is no evidence to suggest the Council did not make its decision properly, I cannot find fault with the decision itself.
33. The Council also properly considered its decision on whether to provide Mr X with an exceptional parking permit. The evidence shows the Council appropriately considered the results of its parking survey before making its decision. As the Council made its decision properly, I cannot find fault with the decision itself.
34. Mr X said the Council’s decision to set up a RPS amounted to harassment because it stopped him from using Road B. However, the evidence available does not support Mr X’s view. As outlined above, the Council followed the correct process before implementing the TRO. As the Council has followed the correct process, it was entitled to introduce the RPS. There is no evidence the Council targeted Mr X or introduced the scheme to specifically prevent Mr X from using Road B.
35. I note Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s communication and that he felt the Council provided vague answers and refused to answer his questions. However, the evidence shows the Council provided proportionate answers to Mr X’s questions and concerns.
36. Mr X was also concerned about the Council’s decision not to engage in any further correspondence with him. The Council did not explain to Mr X why it would not respond to any further correspondence until after the parking survey was completed. I consider it would have been good practice for the Council to explain to Mr X why it had decided it would not respond to further correspondence until it had completed the parking survey. This is fault.
37. However, I do not consider the fault identified caused Mr X any injustice. This is because Mr X did receive further correspondence from the Council after its September 2020 response.
38. There is some evidence of delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s concerns and questions in March 2020. The Council did not provide a full response until August 2020, a delay of five months.
39. However, I do not consider the delay amounts to fault in the circumstances. This is because the Council updated Mr X in June 2020 to advise him the service had been shut due to the Covid-10 pandemic. The Council also explained it would respond to him as soon as possible. Therefore, the Council appropriately kept Mr X updated. I also consider the delay to be reasonable given the unprecedented circumstance of a global pandemic.
40. Finally, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Therefore, I do not consider there was any fault in how the Council dealt with his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I find no fault with the Council’s decision to implement the TRO. I find fault with the Council for not explaining to Mr X why it had decided not to respond to any further correspondence from him until the completion of the parking survey. However, the fault did not cause any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman