Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to re-introduce signage which allows it to enforce limited-time waiting bays because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to re-introduce signage which allows it to enforce limited-time waiting bays outside his home. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Disabled Parking Bay. He says he has difficulty accessing reliable parking close to his home.
2. Mr Y also complains about complaint handling.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about its decision not to install a Disabled Parking Bay outside of his property. The Council explained Mr Y’s application for a bay did not meet its qualifying criteria. It said its decision-making was largely based on Mr Y’s ability to park in the limited-time waiting bay outside his property, providing a valid blue badge is displayed in the vehicle. The Council properly considered Mr Y’s application and determined it did not meet its minimum qualifying criteria, and therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation into this part of the complaint.
8. During discussions with Mr Y, the Council was made aware of its failure to enforce the limited-time waiting bays outside of Mr Y’s home. The Council acknowledged this. It said the bays have a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) but are not appropriately signposted. To address this, the Council re-introduced signage to allow it to enforce the bays again. Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s decision to do this and says he should have been notified.
9. The law says the requirement for public consultation is only necessary when a Council makes, varies or revokes a TRO. The Council was therefore not legally required to consult on its decision to re-introduce the signage (Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996). The law places a statutory duty on Councils to place and maintain signs to give effect to its orders (Section 68 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).
10. The Council explained that the re-introduction of the signage was in line with its policies and statutory duties. I understand that Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s decision to do this, however there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant in investigation into this part of the complaint.
11. The Council acknowledged the challenges Mr Y has been facing when trying to park near his property. It said Mr Y’s property appears to have sufficient space to create a driveway and invited him to consider a vehicle crossover application which would always provide him with accessible off-street parking. It is Mr Y’s choice whether he wishes to consider this.
12. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman