Summary: Mr X complained about the Council introducing parking restrictions by Traffic Regulation Order on the street where his business is located. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to introduce parking and waiting restrictions in the form of double yellow lines on the street where his business is located. He says the Council told him it would reconsider the scheme after he made objections, but it confirmed the Traffic Regulation Order anyway.

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 Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X owns a café business which relies on roadside parking. The Council proposed to introduce parking restrictions on the road in his area to reduce congestion and improve traffic safety. Mr X objected to the proposed restrictions which were part of a Traffic Regulation Order for the area. Other residents also signed a petition to oppose the Order.
5. The Council followed the regulations about publicising the scheme and considering objections. Mr X had an opportunity to speak at a Committee meeting considering the scheme and the objections were considered. The Council agreed to review the Order proposals and a revised scheme was proposed as a result. Mr X did not find this acceptable and wanted the whole scheme to be discontinued.
6. At a second Committee meeting the Council decided to approve the scheme and introduce the Traffic Regulation order.
7. Councils as highway authorities are required to publicise proposed works under Traffic Regulation Orders. They should consider any objections, but they do not have to amend the proposals as a result. Mr X objects to the scheme because of its impact but the Council can introduce the restrictions if it believes they will improve congestion and other traffic problems. There is no right of appeal against the Order other than to the High Court on the basis that it is legally flawed.
8. There is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the Regulations on the introduction of the Traffic Regulation order and so the Ombudsman will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman