Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing double yellow lines near the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council originally decided to implement the lines, and it has taken satisfactory to address the issues raised in the subsequent complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to remove double yellow lines, which he believed had been applied in the wrong location on a road close to his home. He said the Iines reduced the number of accessible parking spaces within close proximity to residents’ homes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken or proposed to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I appreciate Mr X was very unhappy about the Council introducing double yellow lines in front of the pedestrian access to the housing development where he lives.
5. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
6. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its original decision to introduce the lines, so we will not investigate that part of the complaint. The Council followed the relevant statutory process, and its complaint responses explain the lines were intended to provide better access for emergency vehicles. Whilst Mr X might disagree with the Council’s reasoning, it was entitled to reach its own judgement on the matter.
7. The Council has also apologised for the delay in subsequently reviewing the lines, which it had agreed to do in the Stage 1 complaint response. This was due to a member of staff leaving. It has now undertaken this review, and agreed to reduce the length of the lines, so that only a short length remains for access to a fire hydrant. The Council has also raised a learning point with the service area, to ensure detailed work handovers occur when members of staff leave in the future.
8. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a better outcome than this, so we will not investigate the complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to introduce the lines, and it has proposed satisfactory action to address the matter thereafter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman