Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to place parking restrictions outside his property in April 2020 after he raised concerns about vehicles using his driveway to turn around in the road. The Council was at fault when it misunderstood Mr X’s concerns and then failed to communicate with Mr X or properly consider his objections to the parking restrictions. It then failed to provide an adequate response to his complaint about it. The Council agreed to apologise and pay him £150 to acknowledge the frustration and inconvenience the poor communication and unnecessary parking restrictions caused him. It also agreed to remove the parking restrictions without further delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to place parking restrictions outside his property in April 2020 after he raised concerns about vehicles using his driveway to turn around. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider his objections to the restrictions which he says were unnecessary and have caused him inconvenience and time and trouble and did not resolve his original concerns.

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 to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Highway stopping up orders

8. Councils have powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Highways Act 1980 to stop up areas of the public highway by making orders known as a ‘stopping up order’. The term ‘stopping up’ means that once such an order is made, the highway land will cease to be a highway, road or footpath.
9. Stopping up orders are usually made because the public highway is no longer necessary or to allow development to take place. If the order is made under the Highways Act it will generally relate to a public highway that is no longer necessary. The decision to make orders under this act is made by the Magistrates Court. Objections to the order can be made in court at the time and date specified in the order.

Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

10. A TRO is a legal order which allows councils to regulate speed, movement and parking of vehicles. Anyone can object to or support a proposed TRO before the end of the consultation period, which is clearly stated in each order. At the end of the consultation period councils will consider all feedback before deciding whether to implement the order.

What happened

11. Mr X lives on a narrow lane which has no pavements. The lane widens slightly past Mr X’s home and acts as a passing place for vehicles. Mr X’s property and land includes an area of hardstanding which borders the lane which he uses as a driveway. This area has enough space for three vehicles to comfortably park.
12. In May 2019 Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about a car that had parked on his driveway without his permission. The Council advised Mr X that because the car was parked on private land (Mr X’s driveway) then it could not do anything. Mr X said he contacted the police who told him it was a civil matter. Mr X also raised further issues he was having. This included vehicles using his driveway as a temporary parking area when visiting or making deliveries to nearby properties. Mr X also says vehicles use the space outside his property to turn around in the road which had previously led to a vehicle hitting one of his cars which was parked on the drive. Mr X asked the Council about the possibility of purchasing a small strip of the highway land so he could erect a boundary fence or gates. Mr X said the Council officer he spoke to suggested he could apply for a stopping up order.
13. Records show the Council officer then emailed Mr X. They said they had no personal objection to Mr X fencing off the area in front of his house to prevent access to the driveway but would need to consult other areas of the Council. . The officer included information about how Mr X could apply for a stopping up order but said they would ask the Council’s traffic team to see if they could recommend something less costly than the stopping up order which would cost in excess of £3,000.
14. Mr X said he submitted his application for a stopping up order in August 2019. In October 2019 Mr X found a proposed TRO notice on the lamppost outside his home. The proposed TRO was for a single yellow line outside Mr X’s property, along his driveway, to introduce ‘no-waiting’ parking restrictions for vehicles during daytime houses Monday to Friday.
15. Mr X objected to the TRO. He suggested the TRO was as a result of his stopping up order application. Mr X said the TRO if implemented would make his life difficult as it would encourage more vehicles to park on his driveway. Mr X pointed out that no other passing places on his lane had the same restrictions. Mr X’s neighbour also raised a similar objection. In its report the Council stated ‘following a request to stop up the area [outside Mr X’s property]..the area is a passing place and is required for safety reasons therefore the Council proposes to introduce no waiting restrictions…to ensure the passing place is free from parking during peak hour to ensure flow of traffic’. The report stated, ‘if the passing place was stopped up there would be nowhere for delivery drivers to stop without blocking the road’. It recommended the objections be over-ruled and the waiting restriction introduced.
16. Records show the Council informed Mr X in March 2020 that the Council had decided to overrule his objections. The Council implemented the TRO in April 2020 and painted a single yellow line outside Mr X’s property, which essentially restricted parking during daytime hours Monday to Friday.
17. Following the implementation of the single yellow line Mr X raised further objections. His objections included reference to the Council refusing his application for a stopping up order. Mr X said his original concerns were about vehicles using his private land and not the highway therefore there was no need for parking restrictions. Mr X said the Council had misunderstood his original concerns which were about trying to prevent damage to his property by vehicles using his land to turn around when the lane was not wide enough to do so. Mr X said the decision to introduce restrictions was flawed as there was no justification for them. There is no evidence Mr X received a response to the further objections.
18. Mr X formally complained to the Council in March 2021. His complaint reiterated previous concerns and asked the Council to explain why it implemented the TRO and parking restrictions.
19. The Council responded to Mr X at stage one of its complaints procedure in April 2021. It said Mr X’s application for a stopping up order was considered but senior officers decided not to allow it. It acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about that decision but said it could take no further action.
20. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and said it had misunderstood his complaint. Mr X said his complaint was not about the stopping up order but about the decision to put parking restrictions outside his house. Mr X said this appeared to be as a result of his application for the stopping up order.
21. The Council declined to respond to Mr X at stage two. Remaining dissatisfied Mr X complained to us.

The Council’s response to our enquiry letter

22. The Council told us it misunderstood Mr X’s initial concerns and acknowledged he single yellow line restricted Mr X’s own use of the area for parking. It said the decision to implement the parking restrictions was made by officers who no longer worked for the Council and therefore it could give no further details on why they were implemented. The Council said it has now agreed to remove the single yellow line.
23. The Council said Mr X’s lane is narrow and the area considered a passing point, therefore a stopping up order would not be appropriate. On occasion vehicles will use the passing area outside Mr X’s house to turn around. The Council did not consider it could offer a solution to this given the very low use of the lane.

My findings

24. The Council decided to refuse Mr X’s application for a stopping up order and instead decided to introduce waiting restrictions. The Council failed to clearly explain to Mr X why it refused the stopping up order. This was fault. The Council has accepted it misunderstood Mr X’s concerns when it proposed to install parking restrictions, which restricted Mr X’s ability to use the area for parking. The Council said the TRO was to try and help Mr X rather than hinder him. However, there is no evidence the Council sought to discuss the proposed restrictions with Mr X before introducing them. The lack of communication with Mr X at this point was fault.
25. Following the proposal to introduce a TRO Mr X made several objections which clearly explained what his complaint was and why the TRO was not necessary. The Council’s report does not show how the Council considered these objections or why the Council decided to dismiss them in favour of the TRO. Again, at this point I would have expected the Council to have spoken with Mr X to better understand his concerns and objections. All of this was fault and contributed to the implementation of the unnecessary parking restrictions.
26. When Mr X formally complained about the matter the Council had a further opportunity to address Mr X’s concerns. Mr X clearly identified the Council had misunderstood his initial concerns and asked for an explanation of why the Council decided to put in place the parking restrictions. The Council’s response failed to address any of Mr X’s questions and instead focussed on the refusal of the stopping up order application which did not form part of the complaint. The Council’s failure to understand or adequately respond to Mr X’s complaint was fault and caused him frustration.
27. The identified faults contributed to unnecessary parking restrictions outside Mr X’s home for nearly two years. The Council has now agreed to remove them however I have made a recommendation below to acknowledge the frustration and inconvenience the restrictions have caused Mr X over the last two years.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. The Council agreed within one month of the final decision to:
• write to Mr X, apologise and pay him £150 to recognise the frustration and inconvenience caused to him by the Council’s poor communication, its failure to properly consider his objections and the unnecessary parking restrictions implemented outside his property since April 2020.
• remove the TRO and single yellow line from outside Mr X’s property. It agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed this.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I completed my investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman