Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not taken her concerns about the need for double yellow lines or other road safety measures outside her house seriously. Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process, which is in line with its longstanding policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not taken her concerns about the need for double yellow lines or other road safety measures outside her house seriously. She says it relies on decisions taken too long ago, without properly considering whether circumstances have changed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I spoke with Miss X about her complaint and considered what she had to say. I wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the material it sent in response.
5. I have taken account of the Council’s parking strategy, which is available online at https://www.torbay.gov.uk/media/8971/torbay-council-parking-strategy-2016-v4.pdf.
6. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X lives on a narrow road in a coastal town in the Council’s area. It is typical of the time it was built, before motor vehicles were in wide use. The road has narrow pavements and, once people park their cars, little room for others to get by. Miss X says cars often drive up the pavement to be able to drive past. She says this is dangerous for anyone walking and sometimes affects her when she leaves her house. She told the Ombudsman about near misses she has witnessed or had involvement in.
8. Miss X complained to the Council in June 2018. She told it about the near misses and said the Highway Code is clear driving on the pavement is illegal. She asked for a full survey to take place with a view to putting double yellow lines in. The Council responded, saying due to a ‘moratorium’ in funding it could not put parking restrictions in place on her road. It also pointed out when it consulted residents in 2007 about a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), objections meant it did not extend to her road. It said parking causing an obstruction is a matter for the police.
9. Miss X wrote back and asked the Council to reconsider. It responded again, saying this time it would put her concerns forward to the Council’s Transport Working Party when it met in November 2018. It did not promise any further action. It also suggested Miss X might speak to her ward councillor to find out if there was now more local support for a CPZ.
10. The Council sent the Ombudsman detail about the moratorium. A moratorium is where a body stops doing something it would otherwise intend to do. In this case the Council took a decision in 2009 to stop making ‘non-essential’ changes to parking restrictions to save money. It decided futures changes would only happen if they were part of a scheme in the Local Transport Plan. The Council took into account in making the decision that the public would no longer have the ability to ask for changes to parking restrictions.
11. Minutes show the Transport Working Group discussed Miss X’s road at its meeting in November 2018. However, this was because of complaints about access made by the emergency services and there is no specific mention of Miss X’s complaint. However, it accepted there was a clear problem, met again to discuss them further and later the Council consulted the public on putting in more double yellow lines on Miss X’s road.
12. Miss X told me she is now happy with the Council’s proposed action, but only found out about it after this investigation started.

Back to top

Analysis

13. The Ombudsman can investigate the way in which the Council took the decision in this case but cannot make the decision in its place. If officers have properly used their professional judgement to reach a conclusion, I will not substitute my own view of what should happen for theirs.
14. I am satisfied the Council’s actions in this case are in line with the moratorium it put in place in 2009 and its Transport Strategy reflects this. There is nothing in law or government policy to say the Council must take action when members of the public request changes to parking restrictions.
15. I consider its complaint responses to Miss X were appropriate. Although the 2007 consultation about a CPZ was clearly some time ago, the Council told Miss X who to contact if she wanted show there was public support for looking at it again.
16. If Miss X disagrees with the moratorium itself she will have to convince the Council to change its policy. The Ombudsman cannot do so. Although we might intervene where a council refuses to take action under any circumstances, that is not the case here.
17. The Council is now reviewing the situation because of complaints from the emergency services. That is something its Transport Strategy allows for and Miss X has indicated she is happy with the Council’s proposals.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process around introducing parking restrictions on Miss X’s road.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman