Summary: Mr Y complained about how the Council decided to implement two controlled parking zones in his area. We have not found fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about how the Council decided to set up two controlled parking zones in his area.
2. Mr Y lives on the side of the road outside the parking zone. This means that during the restricted hours he cannot park on the other side of the road. There are more cars with permits in the zone than there are spaces to park. This causes overspill to just outside the zone. This makes it harder for Mr Y to park near his property, causing him inconvenience and frustration.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr Y about the complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and watched the publicly available video recording of the meeting it held to consider and decide whether to set up the parking zones.
6. I took account of all the evidence and the comments received, including those in response to my draft decision, before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils can introduce controlled parking zones (CPZ) under a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The legislation for TROs is set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The procedures for creating a TRO are outlined in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
8. Under these regulations councils must follow a procedure when making a TRO. The process is as follows:

• Consultation - with various bodies such as transport operators or local emergency services;
• Publication of proposals by a notice in a local newspaper and “other such steps as it may consider appropriate” to ensure publicity. This may include directly telling people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement;
• Objections – 21 days from the publication of the proposal must be allowed for objections in writing from any person to be made;
• Consideration must be given by the Council to any objections received before it makes a decision;
• Making an order and bringing it into force;
• Action after making the order – a council must publish a “notice of making” in a local newspaper within 14 days; and
• Signs must be placed in the area before the order comes into force.

9. The Council’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction about a service provided by the council, one of our staff, or someone acting on our behalf. A complaint is not a request for service or an enquiry about a service”.
10. The Ombudsman’s guidance on complaint handling says “sometimes service users make complaints that are disagreements with local or national policies. Councils need to decide how to deal with these. They can provide useful intelligence to the council. As far as the service user is concerned, they are complaints and the service user will expect a response”.
11. Policy decisions made by a council’s cabinet can be called-in by the relevant scrutiny committee.

What Happened

12. Articles featuring details about the two proposed CPZs in the area where Mr Y lives were published in the local newspaper in July 2018.
13. The Council then sent public consultation letters, with details including a map of the proposed zones within the CPZ and the times the restrictions would be in force in August 2018. The Council sent letters to residents within the parking zones and asked for comments within 21 days. The Council put up yellow planning notices to alert people in the area to the proposed changes.
14. Mr Y wrote to the Council to object to the planned CPZ. He told the Council he lived on the edge of the proposed CPZ with one side of his road being in the zone, while he lived on the side outside the zone. He said the zone would mean he would have difficulty parking. Mr Y pointed out problems with a previous similar scheme in 2015. Displaced cars parking on his side of the road left him with fewer available spaces to park his car.
15. After receiving several hundred responses to the two proposed CPZs, the Council considered the responses. It specifically considered objections raised by others, which were similar to those later raised by Mr Y, such as the potential for the proposed zones to displace cars. It discussed the matter at a public meeting in October 2018. The Council decided, having weighed up the evidence and responses received, to make the two proposed TROs to create the CPZs.
16. The Council published a notice in a local paper to confirm its approval of the TRO in November and said the CPZ would soon be in force. The Council placed signs on street lamps on the relevant areas to give warning of the CPZ which then came into force in January 2019.
17. Mr Y complained to the Council about the decision made, saying it had not considered its impact on surrounding areas outside the CPZ, including on his property. He asked the Council to review its decision.
18. The Council responded, saying that it would not deal with Mr Y’s complaint under the complaints process as it was about a cabinet decision. Instead it said Mr Y could attend a scrutiny management panel meeting and make a statement explaining his concerns about scrutiny not calling-in that decision.

Analysis

19. While Mr Y feels strongly about this decision, the decision to make a TRO to create a CPZ rests with the Council. As long as it followed the correct procedure to make its decision we cannot question that decision. The Council considered the views raised, including the same concerns Mr Y has raised in his complaint. It considered the new proposals in light of feedback on operation of previously managed parking zones in the area. From the other information provided, the Council correctly consulted, gave notice of the TRO in local press, considered the objections received, made an order and then publicised this locally.
20. Consequently, I have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process as it has followed the procedural steps outlined in the regulations.
21. The Council did not consider Mr Y’s complaint under its complaint process because it concerned a cabinet decision.
22. We expect councils to properly consider all complaints, including those that concern disagreements with local policies. Mr Y raised concerns about whether the Council had followed the correct process and considered all relevant information to make its decision. It would have been helpful if the Council had responded to the points Mr Y raised through the complaint process. However, this was not administrative fault. I have now considered the Council’s decision about the TRO and found no evidence of fault in how it made that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman