Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision and highway restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the shortage of parking at a nearby park in his area which results in vehicles congesting his road seeking a parking space. He says there is already insufficient on-street parking because of double yellow line restrictions and he wants to have further parking bays for residents to be installed.

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. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his road is frequently congested with cars trying to find parking because the nearby park has insufficient parking capacity. This results in cars queuing to turn round and using driveways to turn or parking on the existing yellow lines. He asked the Council to consider adding signage to state that access was limited to residents only and to provide additional parking bays or H-bar markings for residents’ use.
7. The Council told Mr X that it could not provide the signs he has requested because they are not ones normally included in highways legislation. Any amendments to the current parking restrictions would require the introduction of a new Traffic Regulation Order. The Council does not consider that there is sufficient justification or demand for amendments to the existing yellow lines and it has not included the street in a recent review of parking.
8. The view of local councillors and officers was that providing parking bays would add to the shortage of parking because they could not be continuously monitored for use. Any non-statutory H-bar markings are not enforceable and so would only reduce the amount of street already protected by double yellow lines.
9. The Council is the highway authority, and it must decide whether the highway restrictions are sufficient or should be amended. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision and highway restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman