Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to enforce parking restrictions against local residents outside his home without consultation. This is because, there is insufficient evidence of the complainant suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains about the Council’s decision to enforce parking restrictions against local residents outside his home without consultation. In summary, Mr X says the alleged fault means there will be reduced parking availability which in turn will devalue his property. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to consult publicly before implementing any changes.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is an official order (bylaw) made by a local authority that details the nature and extent of traffic restrictions in a certain area.
5. The Council imposed a TRO in respect of parking outside Mr X’s home a number of years ago. The Council agreed a concession to the enforcement of parking restrictions to allow local residents to park in this area. Mr X was told there would be a public consultation in respect of any changes to the concession. In early 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X and local residents to inform of its decision to withdraw of the concession. It did not consult prior to making this decision.
6. The Council accept it would need to consult in respect of implementing any formal parking restrictions. However, I have not identified any evidence that the most recent decision can be regarded as such. This is because the decision to impose a TRO was taken many years ago and following a consultation. The decision to withdraw the concession amounts to the Council resuming enforcement of restrictions already in place. I have considered statutory guidance relating to parking enforcement and have not identified any duty owed by the Council to consult in respect of this change.
7. The Council does accept fault in that it did not communicate with local residents about the change as well as it could have. Before accepting a complaint however, we must be satisfied any fault is likely to have caused Mr X a significant and personal injustice. This means Mr X would likely need to have been caused serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the fault. I have considered the alleged injustice claimed by Mr X relating to reduced parking and the effect of this on the value of his property. I consider this to be a speculative injustice rather than evidence of him having been caused actual serious loss, harm or distress. I consider there is insufficient evidence of Mr X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault with respect to the Council’s decision to withdraw the concession without consultation. In any event, there is also insufficient evidence of Mr X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman