Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Traffic Regulation Order which formalised resident parking near Mr X’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which formalised resident only parking near his property. He says the Council has covered the residential roads with double yellow lines. He says the Council provided minimum requirements for notices to residents and progressed with the scheme despite several negative responses.
2. Mr X says he has trouble parking near his property. He wants the Council to get rid of the double yellow lines and abolish the resident parking.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council met the formal consultation requirements by publishing notice of the proposal in the newspaper. It also issued permit letters to all residents to provide feedback on the proposals. Consultation does not require a council to act in accordance with the majority view. It may decide to proceed with a TRO despite objections, provided it has considered the responses and has good reasons for its decision. The evidence shows the Council considered the consultation responses and, following feedback, amended or withdrew some parts of the scheme in certain areas.
7. If Mr X believes the Council has not properly followed the formal consultation process and that the TRO should be quashed, he may apply to the High Court to challenge it. But this is not an outcome we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman