Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly respond to his concerns about pavement parking which caused a road safety issue. When it did respond, the works it carried out were incorrect and not as agreed. We found there was fault with the Council’s response to the complaint and the works were not done correctly. We recommended an apology a modest payment and a date for remedial works to be completed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council initially failed to respond to concerns he raised about pavement parking causing a highway safety issue. When it responded to the complaint it agreed to take action and provide him with a final report. Mr X complained the Council then failed to send a final report and failed to take the agreed action. Mr X complained that this has led to continued road safety risks to him and other motorists.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the complaint he made and the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. In late 2022, Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about pavement parking in his area. He stated large vehicles often parked on the pavement at the junction of his road and a busy two-lane A-road. He explained this impaired his visibility when joining the A-road and this was dangerous.
7. The Council carried out a site visit in January 2023. Mr X did not hear further and in February 2023 he chased for an update on what action would be taken.
8. Mr X complained in May 2023. The Council initially stated it had noted the concerns and extra attention would be given to enforcement in the area, but resources did not allow enforcement as often as the Council would like.
9. Mr X escalated his complaint and the Council considered the matter further. In June and July it carried out site visits and met Mr X. In response to the issues he raised, the Council proposed that it would carry out some works to alleviate the pavement parking. It stated the works would be some changes to no waiting restrictions on his road and removal of Access Only Restrictions and the provision of one marked parking bay on the pavement of the A-Road. The Council told Mr X it envisaged the works would be carried out in 3-4 months and affected residents would be consulted in advance.
10. Following further discussions with Mr X, the Council also agreed it would consider installing bollards on the pavement between the agreed parking bay and the entrance to his road. This was to deter parking outside of the bay.
11. The Council told us the recommended visibility splay for a junction like this would be 2.4m x 43m. The Council accepted that the visibility would reduce from 43m to 17m with the proposed parking bay. The Council understood the impact to the visibility splay when it decided to implement the parking bay. It considered this would be acceptable provided the bay was positioned as far back from Mr X’s road as possible and because nearby traffic lights also provided natural breaks in traffic to assist motorists to pull out onto the A-road.
12. Mr X says he was told the agreed works would need to go to the Chief Executive of the Council for approval and once this had been done, a final report would be issued. He was told he would get a copy of this.
13. In view of the unreasonable amount of time, trouble and inconvenience Mr X was put to following up the matter the Council offered Mr X £100.
14. Between October 2023 and January 2024, the Council obtained quotes for the work, liaised with contractors and carried out works. The Council explained this took longer than it planned because the Highway Safety Team were understaffed, dealing with a backlog and had a number of significant priority jobs.

Errors with the works

15. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the initial delays in the Council responding to his concerns and that the completed works were not as agreed. He noted he had not been sent the final report he expected.
16. The Council told us following further concerns raised by Mr X, officers had inspected the works carried out. It found that they were not correct.
17. The Council told us the marked parking bay had been positioned around 5.5m closer to Mr X’s road than planned and cars were continuing to park in the area between the bay and his road. In the marked position, the bay reduced the visibility splay to 12m rather than the 17m the Council planned. Other issues with road markings were apparent too. The removal of no waiting restrictions had not been done. The Council told us this was caused by incorrect information being given to contractors and errors being made by the contractors.
18. There was also confusion over who should send the final report to Mr X. The Council noted it had not informed residents in advance of the works as it intended.
19. The Council apologised for the miscommunication which caused these issues. It stated the cause was human error. The Council stated it had now introduced additional quality checks prior to works orders being issued.
20. The Council told us it had since chased up quotations to arrange for the re-marking of the bay in its correct position, and for the installation of bollards. The Council stated these works were expected to take 12 weeks to complete. Other issues with road markings about restrictions had been addressed.
21. The Council offered to increase the payment it had originally offered to Mr X (£100) to £500 to recognise the time, trouble and stress it had caused as a result of the works. Our guidance recommends payments up to £500 in this area. I have recommended that an apology and a payment of £300 would be proportionate in this case, in addition to ensuring the agreed works are completed within the 12 weeks the Council has set out.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should send a written apology to Mr X for the fault in the way the matter was handled. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
23. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should make a payment to Mr X of £300 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused to Mr X by the delays and the errors that necessitated Mr X to complain further.
24. The Council should complete the re-marking of the parking bay to its correct position and the installation of the agreed bollards by the end of August 2024.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman