Manchester City Council (24 011 702)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 03 Dec 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

  1. Mrs Y complained the Council has refused to provide her with a parking permit after double yellow lines were added to the road to the side of her property, where she has been parking previously for several years.
  2. Mrs Y says the issue has affected her whole family and she regularly struggles to park near her property, causing problems for her two young grandchildren and her disabled daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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
  • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information Mrs Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mrs Y was not included in the list of property owners who would need to be considered for a parking permit when the Council used a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to put double yellow lines on the road which runs along her property. This was because her property address is for a different road. Mrs Y is unable to park along the front of her property due to a crossing patrol officer helping people to cross the road outside, opposite the local school. She has therefore sought a residential parking permit to allow her to park, as she previously did, on the road to the side of her property.
  2. The Council has refused her request at this time, on the basis that her property is not included in the list of properties within the TRO and she is therefore ineligible. It has however agreed that it will try to provide her with a parking permit as soon as it can, but has explained it will need to include her property in a different new TRO as the existing TRO has now been made. As it will need to identify a suitable TRO to do this, and the granting of a TRO is a legal process it has been unable to give a timescale for this.
  3. As the Council has considered the issue, recognised the inconvenience caused and has agreed to take action when it is able to, to try to resolve the problem, and can only do this through the method it has explained, further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. If we were to investigation, find fault causing injustice and recommend a remedy, we would likely recommend the same action the Council has already agreed to take be considered.
  4. Consequently, as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we will not investigate.
  5. Also, in this case, as there is no right to parking and the Council are not required to provide permits to those who are not eligible, we would not find fault in the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs Y with a permit. This is because the Council has considered her request and applied the criteria as set out in the TRO, based on address, and made a decision which is in line with the criteria. While Mrs Y may feel inconvenienced by this, where a decision is made properly, we cannot question the outcome. As we would not find fault, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings