Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council introducing a controlled parking zone near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to fairly and transparently consult residents on a new controlled parking zone.
2. Mr X said the Council introduced different permit parking controls to the ones residents supported.

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 an investigation.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s notice of the traffic regulation orders.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has explained the consultation it undertook when considering introducing a controlled parking zone and this is in accordance with the statutory process. It said it sent out informal and formal consultation letters to all residents in the street. It also hand delivered letters and knocked on the doors of the residents. We cannot show the Council did not take these actions or, therefore, say it was at fault for the way it conducted the process.
8. Following the consultation, the Council decided to go ahead with the controlled parking zone, which it was entitled to do, and made an Order formalising the parking restrictions. It said there was no clear majority in the residents’ replies about the days it should enforce the permit parking controls, so it decided on parking controls which were in line with others nearby. The decision is a matter of professional judgement and without any evidence of fault in the way it was reached, we cannot question it.
9. Mr X said there were few formal responses from residents, which he believes suggests serious flaws in the Council’s process. However, we cannot say this is proof of flaws in the process.
10. Mr X had the right to challenge the validity of the Order to the High Court if he believed the Council had not followed the proper consultation process. The right is set out in the Order itself, so it is reasonable to expect him to have used that right. We cannot say the Order, or the controlled parking zone itself, is invalid and we have no powers to quash or change it as Mr X would like.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman