Summary: On the evidence available, there is no evidence of fault by the Council. Officers consulted residents on a traffic scheme, considered the responses and made a decision. The complainant disagrees with the scheme, as it places restrictions outside his business, but there is no evidence of fault leading up to the Councils decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains a Council officer told him that there was no reason that a double red line could not be changed to a single red line outside his guest house, but would not consider changes until a consultation scheme ended.

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 read the papers submitted by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him.
5. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B owns a guest house. Mr B says that in 2017 double yellow lines were wrongly placed outside the guest house and he spoke to a traffic officer about it at the time.
7. In March 2018 the Council sent out letters to consult residents on a traffic scheme on his road and wrote to residents in June 2018 to invite them to a public meeting on the scheme.
8. The scheme was a trial scheme, which placed a double red line outside Mr B’s guest house, this meant there was no stopping on this part of the road at any time.
9. Mr B met with Officer X, a transport projects officer on 9 October 2018 and asked if the double red lines could be changed to a single red line. Officer X spoke to his manager and told Mr B on 24 October that changes to the scheme could not be made before the end of the consultation.
10. At the end of the consultation, the Council decided to keep the scheme, including the double red lines outside Mr B’s guest house.

My analysis

11. Mr B complains that as he had already spoken to a Council officer with his concerns about the double yellow lines, the Council should have considered these comments in response to the consultation. Mr B did not reply to the consultation as he did not see the letters.
12. I can find no fault on this point. I do not think it reasonable that a Council officer would remember Mr B’s views accurately over a year later. I also do not think that it is appropriate for a Council officer to put forward the views of a resident, this puts the Council officer in a very vulnerable position if the resident has moved or changed their mind.
13. Mr B says that the Council should have been aware that a guest house owner would object to restrictions to stopping outside the property. I understand Mr B’s point, but it is also possible that a guest house owner would appreciate other road users not parking outside the property. So, I don’t consider the Council officers could guess the views of a resident, the point of consultation is for residents to put forward their views directly.
14. Mr B complains that Officer X said to him he would try to get the double red line changed to a single red line but then told him that his manager had said it could not be changed till the end of the consultation. The Council has confirmed that Officer X’s manager considered the request but did not agree. Officer X told Mr B of the result and I can find no fault on this point. The Council considered the request, made a decision and informed Mr B of the result.
15. Mr B’s main complaint is that the Council has decided to keep the double red lines outside his guest house permanently. The Council has said ‘that double red lines are placed outside Mr B’s guest house to deter parked vehicles causing obstructions and being a danger, especially either side of the railway bridge. Where there is better visibility (the road is flatter and straight) it is safer to allow vehicles to stop or park outside the times of the single red line restrictions’.
16. Mr B questions why it is acceptable for a bus to stop every 20 minutes at a nearby bus stop but it is not acceptable for his guests to stop to unload luggage. The Council has said that ‘as the height of the single deck bus is greater than most cars, the bus will be visible over the brow of the bridge. The bus usually will be there no more than a minute to board and or alight passengers, and is also an essential part of the local transport network’.
17. I can find no fault leading up to the Council’s decision, the Council consulted residents and took into account their views before making a decision. I appreciate that Mr B disagrees, but it is a decision the Council is entitled to make. Officers have clearly considered the points Mr B has made, but decided not to amend the scheme to the single red line he would prefer. It is not fault for the Council to make a decision that a resident does not agree with, although I appreciate Mr B’s concerns about the impact on his business.

Back to top

Draft decision

18. Subject to further comments by Mr B and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is not upheld.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman