Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a decision to implement a Controlled Parking Zone on a road near to where she lives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) policy is incomplete and has no legal basis. She also complains the consultations have been unfair.
2. Mrs X wants the CPZ to be extended to include her road to enable her to park outside her house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows councils to introduce Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) and CPZs. The procedures for creating a TMO are in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
8. The Council has a policy to introduce controlled parking zones in its area. The process includes consultation with residents in the areas where controlled parking is proposed. The Council will then decide whether to implement a scheme and which roads to include. The policy says it will introduce controlled parking where at least 51% of residents appear in favour of the scheme. Following consultation, it may introduce it in the whole area consulted or in smaller zones within the area.
9. Following a consultation, the Council decided to implement a CPZ within the area. It approved an experimental traffic order, implementing controlled parking for 18 months. The order set out that residents would be able to comment and raise any objections to the scheme within the first six months. The Council would consider all comments received before deciding whether to make the scheme permanent within 18 months.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council can decide where to implement controlled parking zones and it has considered the consultation responses as part of its decision making. Mrs X can object to the experimental order. Then, if the order is made permanent, she can challenge this decision in the High Court.
11. I recognise Mrs X remains dissatisfied. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. 

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman