Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make changes to a residents parking scheme which Mr X says is incompatible with other traffic orders, limiting Police enforcement powers. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to bring in a new residents parking scheme which is needed because the current scheme is subject to a traffic order passed in 2010 and which conflicts with other traffic orders which restrict access. He says this gives immunity to residents who use restricted access because they have a valid permit. He wants the Council to change the scheme as it indicated it would in the past.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council has not made changes to an existing residents parking scheme which allows drivers with a permit to use roads which have limited access without being prosecuted by the Police. He says the current traffic order contradicts earlier orders restricting access and this prevents the Police from enforcing the restrictions.
7. The Council accepts that there are changes required to the permit system for various reasons but that this is not yet in place. The change sot the existing scheme will require a new Traffic Regulation Order to be introduced or the existing one to be modified. This is a legal procedure which require statutory consultation and a cabinet decision. The Council has proposed to change the scheme in recent years but this has currently been deferred.
8. We will not investigate any matters relating to the original 2010 Traffic Regulation Order because this completed the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 process and any concerns by the Police should have been raised at the time. Only an appeal to the High Court in 2010 could have challenged the Order. Any complaints about the order process are outside the12-month period for receiving complaints.
9. The Council as highway authority has a power to change the parking scheme by way of a new traffic order or a modification. This is power not a statutory duty and there is no requirement for it to decide to do this within a particular timescale. The current traffic order is the one which applies until any new order is made.
10. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make changes to a residents parking scheme which Mr X says is incompatible with other traffic orders, limiting Police enforcement powers. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman