Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to place yellow-line parking restrictions outside her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to put yellow line parking restrictions outside her home. She says she is disabled and the restrictions will limit her being able to park outside her home to three hours during the hours they apply.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mrs X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2018 the Council proposed to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order to create parking restrictions on the road which Mrs X lives on. This meant double yellow lines would prevent her from parking outside her home as she had previously. Mrs X objected to the proposals. After consulting with residents and businesses the Council modified the scheme to comprise single yellow-line restriction on weekdays during daytime hours.
5. Mrs X complained about the decision. She says she has a disabled drivers blue badge and the terms of badge allow her only to park for 3 hours. The Council considered her complaint and offered to create a disabled parking bay nearby. Mrs X says she did not want a bay but wished to have no restrictions outside her home.
6. The Council says the Order has been confirmed and that it cannot exempt individual properties from the order. It says the Order complies with the Road Regulation Act 1984 and that it took the Equalities Act requirements into account. Mrs X is in the same position as any other driver with a disabled blue badge and she has to comply with the requirements of the blue badge scheme. It has offered to create a disabled parking bay nearby but she has declined the offer so far.
7. 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. The Council followed the proper procedure when introducing the Order and the Order itself could only be challenged in the High Court by an objector who feels it is invalid.
8. Drivers in the UK have no individual rights to park on the public highway outside their home or in any location. They may park where there are no restrictions preventing it. The Council is the highway authority and it can introduce restrictions where is considers they would improve traffic management or highway safety as a whole.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman