Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council considered requests from Mr B and Ms C for parking restrictions (double yellow lines) to two exit junctions of the street where they live. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council made without fault, simply because Mr B and Ms C disagree with it. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy to Mr B and Ms C for the lack of clarity and delay in some of its responses.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on his own and his neighbour’s (Ms C) behalf about how the Council has dealt with their requests for parking restrictions (double yellow lines) to the junctions of the street where they live, to help improve visibility for drivers of oncoming traffic. Mr B says the Council has not provided accurate information about the costs involved in putting the parking restrictions in place and has delayed responding to his correspondence about this. Mr B says he and other residents are very worried about the increased risk of accidents as they exit the junctions and have had frequent near misses in the past. Mr B feels the Council is hiding behind the excuse of budgetary cuts to justify not putting in the parking restrictions, when it should be working pragmatically with residents to come to an alternative solution.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Mr B’s complaint about how it dealt with his and his other neighbours’ requests for parking restrictions and subsequent complaints. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have spoken to Mr B and considered the information he has provided in support of his complaint.
7. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries about its interaction with Mr B and Ms C in respect of this matter
8. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. Councils have a duty to “secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.” (Section 122, Road Traffic Act 1984, as amended).
10. Councils also have a duty to carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety and carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles. Councils must in the light of those studies take such measures as the council considers appropriate to prevent such accidents. (Section 39, Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended).
11. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 a council may make an order (a Traffic Regulation Order) for controlling or regulating vehicular and other traffic. (section 6, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)
12. The procedure for creating a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
13. In 2011, the Council’s then allocated annual budget used to fund a small number of local TROs was withdrawn. The Council has adopted an approach of considering and implementing TROs on a ‘worst first’ basis since then.
14. The Council monitors all Personal Injury Collisions (PIC) from data compiled and held by South Yorkshire Police. This data is used to determine priority sites for TROs. The Council uses PIC data for the last three years to rank the priority of areas in need of TROs – it looks for those sites where there has been a minimum of six collisions within a 50-metre radius. The data from the Police includes information about the time, date, weather conditions and other factors that contributed to the collision.

What happened

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mr B first contacted the Council in June 2014 to highlight concerns when pulling out of the two junctions from which one can leave the road he lives on. Mr B asked the Council to consider adding double yellow lines to prevent cars from parking too close to the junctions and impeding visibility or installing a mirror so that drivers could better see oncoming traffic. The Council explained its procedure for deciding which sites required TROs and that the Department for Transport had recently advised against the use of mirrors as they were likely to cause glare and further impede visibility. The Council told Mr B there had been no personal injury collisions recorded in the last three years for the two sites he had highlighted and that recent speed monitoring had indicated drivers were largely obeying the 30 miles per hour speed limit on the main road adjoining the junctions. The Council explained to Mr B it had no budget to implement TROs in areas where its usual criteria were not met.
17. Mr B contacted the Council again in November 2016 to comment on a proposed TRO to install double yellow lines further up the main road from his home. Mr B said he did not object to the proposed TRO but asked for it to be extended to include the two junctions to the road he lives on. Mr B said cars continued to regularly park too close to these two junctions and made it almost impossible to see approaching cars when pulling.
18. The Council responded to Mr B and explained it would put his comments forward for Cabinet to consider but would not be able to extend the scope of the proposal to include the two junctions Mr B had highlighted. The Cabinet considered and approved the proposed TRO at the end of February 2017.
19. Mr B continued to correspond with the Council about his concerns with the two junctions to their road throughout 2017 and 2018. This included making requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act and engaging the support of local ward councillors and local Member of Parliament. Mr B wrote to the Council on behalf of Ms C and several other neighbours to collectively express their concerns about the poor visibility at the two junctions and the risks they all placed themselves in each time they drove out.
20. Mr B, Ms C and other neighbours had a meeting with councillors and highways officers on 28 June 2017. The residents were able to express their concerns about the two junctions and the Council was able to further explain why the sites did not meet the criteria of a priority location that warranted the parking restrictions requested. The Council explained that while it did not have the funding to implement the restrictions, it would draw up indicative proposals to help ward members with deciding whether it could use part of its devolved budget to do this.
21. Mr B was informed by one of the ward councillors supporting him that the Highways Team had estimated the proposed TRO for the two junctions would cost approximately £2,000 to £3,000 to implement. Mr B made a Freedom of Information Act request in March 2017 to obtain a more accurate figure from the Council about the costs involved. The Council responded and said it estimated the additional double yellow lines at the two junctions would cost £2,174. This figure included engineer and legal fees, advertisements and road markings. Mr B asked local ward councillors to use this figure to consider if it could provide funding from its devolved budget.
22. In November 2018, the councillor supporting Mr B requested an up to date figure from the Council. The Council’s Highways Team advised the councillor the work to the two junctions would cost £8,000 as the Council needed to factor in the costs of dealing with potential objections.
23. Mr B challenged these revised costs. He questioned how an estimate for works could have increased by so much since March 2017. Mr B made further Freedom of Information Act requests to ask for details of the costs incurred in other approved TRO schemes to compare the amount the Council had quoted. Mr B asked the Council to deal with his concerns about the way the Highway’s Team had responded under the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr B also complained about delay in responding to his Freedom of Information Act requests and the exemptions the Council applied when it declined to provide the information he had asked for.
24. The Council responded and explained its complaints procedure could not be used to challenge the outcome of a Freedom of Information Act request. The Council apologised for and explained the delay in dealing with Mr B’s requests were due to delays in receiving responses from relevant teams. The Council invited Mr B to provide further details of the complaints he had about the Highway’s Team if he wanted to pursue these complaints.
25. At the end of November 2018, the Council’s Complaints Team rejected Mr B’s further complaints about the Highways Team because it considered all the issues raised related to its handling of Mr B’s Freedom of Information Act requests and therefore fell outside the remit of the complaints procedure. The Complaints Team sought further information from Mr B about his other complaints on 3 and 13 December 2018. It set out its understanding of Mr B’s complaints in a plan it sent to him on 28 January 2019.
26. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage one complaint on 19 March 2019. The Council acknowledged the way it had dealt with his representations to the proposed TRO could have better as it should have explained why these were lodged as objections. The Council explained the estimates to add double yellow lines to the two exit junctions of Mr B’s street were substantially different because earlier amounts had not included all the costs typically associated with similar TROs the Council had implemented in recent years. The Council confirmed that the final estimate provided at the beginning of 2019 (for £10,000) included contingency sums so that Ward Members knew the highest possible amount they might need to provide if they wanted fund the TRO from their devolved budget. The Council upheld this element of Mr B’s complaint and said it would develop a database to record actual costs of implemented TROs and devise a template to provide consistently costed and detailed estimates in future. The Council also upheld Mr B’s complaint about the delay in responding to the three Freedom of Information Act requests he had made in 2018, which were between two and three working days late on each occasion.
27. Mr B remained dissatisfied and asked for further clarification on some elements of the Council’s stage one complaint response. The Council provided that clarification to Mr B at the end of March 2019. The Council confirmed its final estimate for implementing the double yellow lines to the two junctions included the cost of traffic management to ensure the safety of those painting the double yellow lines. The Council also provided an example of a site which had met the criteria for a TRO because there had been a number of serious and slight collisions in that area over the last three years. The Council wrote to Mr B on 23 May 2019 to confirm his complaint had reached the end of its process and was not suitable for further internal review. The Council signposted Mr B to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Back to top

Analysis

28. It is clear Mr B, Ms C and their neighbours have been concerned about this issue for a number of years. The Council explained to Mr B from the outset in 2014 that its procedures limited the TROs it was able to implement. The Council has applied its usual criteria for determining the two exit junctions in Mr B’s case did not qualify for additional traffic restriction funding. While Mr B and his neighbours may strongly disagree with the Council’s decision, I consider it has followed its procedures in this case. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of a decision where there is no evidence of procedural fault.
29. The Council has explained why the estimates it has provided over the years to Mr B and his supporters have differed. It has also confirmed the final estimate it provided includes the cost of traffic management. I cannot say the Council is at fault because this estimate might exceed the funds available to ward members in their devolved budget. I appreciate the strength of feeling Mr B, Ms C and their neighbours have about the dangers with exiting the two junctions and the extent to which their visibility has been restricted by inconsiderately parked cars. However, as stated above, the Ombudsman can only consider the procedure followed by the Council; we cannot make decisions based on fairness. Nor can we place ourselves into the role of an officer and replace their views with our own.
30. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for the lack of clarity and slight delay in its responses to Mr B’s Freedom of Information Act requests. It has also confirmed it will make changes to its procedures based on Mr B’s feedback. I am satisfied this sufficiently remedies the faults highlighted by Mr B’s complaint and further remedial action is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found no fault in the way the Council considered Mr B and Ms C’s requests for traffic restrictions. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the way in which it handled Mr B and Ms C’s enquiries.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his and his other neighbours’ Freedom of Information Act requests. The Ombudsman cannot look at whether the Council dealt with these requests on time or the exemptions it has applied. This is because such matters fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office to investigate.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman