Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that the Council did not consider the views of residents when it decided to implement a Controlled Parking Zone. There is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains that the Council decided to implement a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) even though residents objected to the plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are areas where councils introduce and enforce parking restrictions through Traffic Regulation Orders or Traffic Management Orders. These orders are necessary to establish a CPZ and allow local authorities to manage parking effectively within designated zones. Councils typically have their own policies to assess and prioritise applications for new traffic restrictions which include the creation of CZs.
7. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides an opportunity for a person to question the validity of the order on the grounds either:

• That it is not within the relevant powers, or
• That the procedural requirements for making the order have not been complied with.

8. An application must be made to the High Court within six weeks from the date the order is made.
9. Ms Y did not complain that the Council did not have the relevant powers to make this decision. Ms Y did not complain that the procedural requirements for making the order were not complied with. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that Ms could have taken the Council to Court.
10. I reviewed the extensive documentation which is on the Council’s website regarding its decision to implement the CPZ. The Council had a period of public engagement and a statutory consultation regarding the implementation of the CPZ prior to deciding to implement it.
11. The Council collated the feedback and objections received and provided this information to the decision makers when they made their decision. The Council properly considered the concerns raised by residents during their decision-making process.
12. We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
13. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process so I cannot question the decision made by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that the Council did not consider the views of residents when it decided to implement a Controlled Parking Zone. There is not sufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman