Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not enforced the controlled parking zone on his road and has taken no action to address the street signs being vandalised. We have found the Council at fault for its record-keeping and for delaying in instructing a repair to the signs. These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration. We have recommended an apology and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not enforcing the controlled parking zone (CPZ) on his road. He says the signage is repeatedly vandalised and the Council has taken no meaningful action to address the problem. This has led to long periods with no active parking enforcement. Mr X says he is paying for a service he is not receiving. This is causing frustration and inconvenience.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr X provided about his complaint.
5. I considered the Council’s responses to my enquiries.
6. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Traffic Regulation Order

7. A traffic regulation order (TRO) is a legal document issued by local authorities, setting out measures to help manage traffic flow, speed limits, and parking restrictions in a given area.

Controlled Parking Zone

8. Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are a specific parking restriction that may be introduced by a TRO. CPZs usually apply to a road, or group of roads, and typically place restrictions on how these roads can be used between certain hours of operation. The restrictions relating to a specific CPZ are shown on signs displayed in the area.
9. CPZs are commonly used to allow only those vehicles displaying a valid residential permit to park on-street at certain times of day.
10. Contravening the terms of a CPZ can result in being issued a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Statutory guidance for local authorities on civil enforcement of parking contraventions

11. The government published statutory guidance, updated in 2022, setting out the policy framework for civil parking enforcement. This guidance was published in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004.
12. On the subject of enforcement, the guidance states:

“Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO (traffic regulation order). These circumstances may make the order unenforceable. If a representation against a PCN shows that a traffic sign or road marking was defective, the authority should accept the representation because the adjudicator is likely to uphold any appeal.”

13. Further, the guidance states:

“An enforcement authority may be acting unlawfully and may be open to legal challenge if it continues to issue PCNs that it knows to be unenforceable”

Anti-social behaviour

14. Councils have a general duty to take action to address anti-social behaviour (ASB). The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave local authorities new powers to tackle ASB. These are:
• the power to issue community protection notices (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a specified period of time; and
• the power to apply to the courts for a civil injunction.
15. The Government has issued statutory guidance about the use of these powers for professionals.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

16. The Ombudsman published the Principles of Good Administrative Practice (the Ombudsman’s Guidance) in 2018. The Ombudsman’s Guidance sets out the Ombudsman’s benchmark for the standards expected when investigating local authorities’ actions.
17. The Ombudsman’s Guidance stresses the importance of being open and accountable, explaining the reasons for decision making, and keeping proper, suitable records.

Back to top

What I found

Background

18. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this complaint. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between the parties involved.
19. Mr X lives on a road located within a CPZ. In 2021, Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to properly enforce the CPZ. Mr X said he paid yearly for a resident permit, but other vehicles were parking inside the CPZ despite not having a valid permit to do so. Mr X said the CPZ signs were being defaced regularly and the Council was not taking action to address this, or to enforce the conditions of the CPZ. Mr X also raised his concerns with his Member of Parliament (MP).
20. When making his complaint, Mr X sought the following:
• For the Council to repair vandalised signs within 24 hours;
• For the Council to take action that would address the impact of the anti-social behaviour, such as raising the height of the CPZ signs, applying anti-graffiti solution, and installing CCTV cameras;
• For the Council to enforce against contraventions and take action against individuals caught engaging in anti-social behaviour; and
• For the Council to refund Mr X the cost of his annual resident’s permit.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and to Mr X’s MP. Summarised, the content of both responses said:
• The Council had inspected the roads in question and accepted there were issues with the signs in these areas. It had ordered a repair to the damaged signs.
• It could take between 28 and 56 days to repair or replace the signs, depending on available resources.
• The Council could not take enforcement action in areas where the signage was not visible or missing, but it would take action to repair or replace the signs.
• The Council could cancel Mr X’s permit and refund the proportion of the cost unused for the rest of the year, but Mr X would have to return the permit.
22. Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

23. The Council has intersecting responsibilities for the issues Mr X has reported. It has a general duty to take action to address ASB reported in its locality and specific ASB powers it can use to do so. It is also responsible for repairing the signage on Mr X’s road and enforcing against valid parking contraventions.
24. I asked the Council how it had considered its ASB powers in this case. The Council said Mr X had made three reports to its ASB team between May 2021 and September 2022. The details of these reports were as follows:
1. On the 23 February 2022, Mr X reported that parking signs on his road and a neighbouring road had been vandalised. Mr X said there was no space for residents to park and it was unfair that residents paid for a permit in these circumstances. He asked the Council to act by installing CCTV or graffiti-proof signage.
2. On the 28 February 2022, Mr X reported that several parking signs had been vandalised.
3. On the 22 March 2022, Mr X reported that signs in his road and a neighbouring road had been vandalised. Mr X said he had reported this on several occasions but no action had been taken.
25. The Council said this would be a matter better investigated by the Police, rather than its ASB team, as it concerned a criminal offence committed by unknown individuals. It said Mr X had in the past provided details of a suspected perpetrator, but this was a historic report and it would be for the Police service to consider whether to investigate.
26. The Council’s ASB powers are set out in paragraphs 14 and 15. The power most likely to be relevant would be the power to issue a CPN, although the Council would need to know the identity of the alleged perpetrator to do so. Additionally, the Council would need to consider the available evidence before deciding what course of action it could take. The ASB statutory guidance advocates taking an appropriate, proportionate response, and councils have general discretion in how best to investigate and manage allegations of ASB.
27. Mr X has said the Council should install CCTV and take other preventative actions, such as using anti-graffiti material and repositioning the signs to make them harder to vandalise. The Council has no specific duty to pursue these proposed measures and I cannot therefore recommend the Council do so. The merits of such action would be a decision for the Council, based on the effective allocation of its resources and local priorities. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for not taking these actions.
28. The Council is correct that it cannot carry out enforcement when the CPZ signs have been vandalised. The statutory guidance is clear that a local authority may be acting unlawfully if it issues PCNs it knows cannot be enforced.
29. The Council has said it can take up to 56 days to repair a damaged street sign, from when a repair order is instructed. I recognise Mr X believes this timescale is excessive. Service standards for repairs are set locally, however, and the Ombudsman cannot recommend the Council make changes to its service delivery unless there is evidence of administrative fault.
30. I asked the Council to provide details of the reports it had received about vandalised signs and repairs it had completed. The Council provided records that showed two repairs to vandalised street signs on Mr X’s road, between May 2021 and August 2022. The Council completed one repair within target time. One repair was ongoing, but still within time.
31. The Council has not provided any evidence to show what actions it took in response to Mr X’s reports of vandalised signs in February and March 2022. When we first contacted the Council about Mr X’s complaint, it told us in June 2022 the signs on the road were damaged. It said it would be taking action to repair them; however, the repair records show it did not instruct a repair until August.
32. The Ombudsman’s guidance stresses the importance of keeping proper, suitable records and taking appropriate actions at the correct time. I have found the Council at fault for its inconsistent record-keeping and for delaying in instructing the relevant repairs.
33. Because of these faults, there is some uncertainty over whether the Council recorded and acted on Mr X’s reports in a consistent way. On a balance of probability, I believe it likely the Council has not responded uniformly to each of Mr X’s reports, with there being some avoidable delays. This in turn would lead to longer periods where the Council could not enforce the terms of the CPZ.
34. Mr X says this has meant he has been unable to park outside, or near to, his home. I cannot say any delay by the Council in repairing the street signs is the reason Mr X has been unable to park where he wants to. This is because individuals holding permits that allow them to park inside a CPZ are not guaranteed a specific place to park, nor even to be able to park within the CPZ. The permits only provide a right to park within the boundary of the CPZ during hours where enforcement is taking place.
35. I am, however, of the view the Council not responding to reports of vandalised signs as quickly as it could have done has caused Mr X unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. This is because Mr X has had to make multiple reports for the same issue.
36. Mr X has said the Council should refund the cost of his permit and he should be able to park without restriction. While I have identified delays and inconsistent record-keeping in this case, the main reason the CPZ is periodically unenforceable is due to vandalism carried out by unknown individuals. The Council has said Mr X would be able to return the permit and seek a refund for any time unused. However, the Council is entitled to enforce the CPZ when it legally can. I cannot recommend the Council provides an individual exemption for Mr X against future enforcement, should he opt to return his permit.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by its inconsistent record-keeping and the delay in instructing repairs to the damaged street signs in 2022.
38. Within eight weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. put in place an action plan, setting out how it will ensure reports of vandalised street signs are properly documented and addressed without administrative delay.
39. The Ombudsman will require evidence of the Council’s compliance with the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman