Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking scheme the Council introduced. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about a parking scheme the Council introduced under a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Mrs X wants various outcomes including free parking for some residents and for the Council to re-open the TRO.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes information about the TRO and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils can introduce parking schemes but must follow a statutory process. This includes a consultation, advertising the proposed TRO, considering objections and sealing the TRO. People can apply to the High Court if they do not think a council has followed the correct process. It is time consuming and expensive to create a TRO and, once sealed, a parking scheme cannot be changed without creating a new TRO.
5. The Council held a public consultation regarding a proposed parking scheme in its area. The aim of the scheme was to reduce commuter parking. Of the people who responded, 33% opposed the plans. In response to the consultation the Council made some changes. The Council then decided to formally propose a TRO and it carried out a statutory consultation; about 25% of respondents objected. Some of the objections included the impact on residents who used the road for parking. The Council considered the responses and, after advertising the TRO, sealed and implemented it. The TRO includes parking restrictions at certain times, free parking at other times, free and paid for parking bays, and largely unrestricted parking for Blue Badge holders.
6. Mrs X complained after the TRO had been sealed. Mrs X explained to the Council why the parking scheme was causing problems for her. She complained about a lack of parking for disabled people, that the scheme favours households with larger drives, and that some problems only became apparent after the scheme started. Mrs X asked the Council to change aspects of the scheme.
7. In response the Council suggested ways Mrs X could avoid the problems mentioned. It said it cannot change the TRO without additional funds which it does not have. It explained it does not provide disabled bays outside high demand areas. It said it had considered a permit scheme but decided it would not work.
8. Mrs X remains dissatisfied and wants free parking for the residents who objected and for the Council to make other changes. She has also complained the Council not consider equality issues.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council followed the correct process and considered equality issues. People had the chance to object and the Council made changes in response to some objections. The majority of respondents supported the TRO and, while I appreciate Mrs X objects, there is nothing to stop a council implementing a TRO which does not have 100% support. In addition, there is no requirement for a council to make different arrangements for people who objected. The Council has correctly said it cannot change a sealed TRO; changes would require a new TRO for which it does not have the funds. There would also need to be another consultation to see if there was support for Mrs X’s suggestions.
10. I also will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X wants. We cannot change the TRO, ask the Council to change the parking scheme or ask the Council to re-open the TRO.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman