Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s proposal of a Controlled Parking Zone on Mr X’s street. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to impose a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) covering his street. Mr X also says the Council has refused to recognise petitions of residents.
2. Mr X is unhappy that he would have to pay for a parking permit in his street and does not want the CPZ putting in place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council arranged a public consultation on the proposed CPZ programme between December 2024 and February 2025. As part of its considerations, the Council considered comments by residents in the area and produced a review consultation report in March 2025. The Council approved the proposal in July 2025.
8. The CPZ is not yet in place. Mr X has provided us evidence of a petition opposing the plans. The Council report to cabinet shows petitions presented, both in favour and opposition. The report shows that responses in Mr X’s street were high in opposition.
9. However, consultation for a CPZ is not a referendum. The decision to make a Traffic Management Order (TMO), needed to create a CPZ, rests with the Council. At this point, no TMO exists in the area Mr X is complaining about. However, as the Council can make the decision to introduce the CPZ if it wishes even where there is public disagreement, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s actions following the petition from Mr X.
10. The Council has published its proposals and consideration of any objections made. This is in line with the process set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders Regulations (1996). As the Council has followed the necessary steps set out in the regulations in making its decision, there isn’t enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman