Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council introduced a residents’ parking scheme. It is unlikely he would find evidence of fault by the Council. Further, the complainant had a right to apply to the High Court if she believed the Council had not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs C, has complained on behalf of several local people about a parking scheme introduced by the Council. She says the Council did not consider the views of residents before it did this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

0. it is unlikely we would find fault;
1. the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
2. the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered what Mrs C said in her complaint and information on the Council’s website. Mrs C commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. To introduce a CPZ, a council must make a traffic regulation order (TRO) in accordance with the Regulations. ( Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996)
9. In this case, the Council made an experimental TRO which allowed it to introduce controls for an initial period of up to 18 months. At end of 18 months, the Council had to either revoke the order or make it permanent.
10. There is no need for a council to advertise an experimental TRO or consider objections before making it. The council has to publish a ‘notice of making’ in a local newspaper. This must state that all objections to the scheme must be made within the first 6 months.
11. To make an experimental TRO permanent, a council must consider any objections made in the first 6 months. It must then publish a notice within 14 days of making the TRO, give adequate publicity to the TRO and write to any objectors outlining the reasons for going ahead with the proposal.
12. The notice must also advise there is a right to apply to the High Court within 6 weeks of the date of the TRO. This can be on the basis that:-
• the council does not have powers to make the order; or
• the council has not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.

Summary of events

13. in 2016 the Council consulted residents about a possible residents’ parking scheme. As a result, it advertised an experimental TRO in June 2017. It then considered the objections it received and amended the proposed scheme which came into effect in October 2017.
14. The Council considered a report in July 2018 in which the objections received within the six months from October 2017 to April 2018 were summarised. These included two petitions; one in favour and one against the scheme.
15. The Council decided to retain the experimental scheme and it was made permanent on 15 August 2018. However, the Council proposes to vary the TRO and has recently consulted on this.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen nothing to suggest we would find evidence of fault by the Council in how it introduced the residents’ parking scheme. Further, Mrs C and the people on whose behalf she complains, had a right to apply to the High Court if they believed the Council had not complied with the relevant Act or regulations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman