Summary: There is no fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s concerns about parking in the road space opposite his home

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to take action to prevent his neighbours and others parking on the road opposite the drive to his property. Mr X says he is unable to drive his car off the drive when someone is parked opposite as the road is too narrow to accommodate him turning onto the road when this is the situation.
2. Mr X has heart and spinal health problems which he says limit his mobility thus making him more reliant on his car than others may be. He also says that he is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and this is exacerbated by the stress caused by the parking issues outside his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the written information he provided with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
7. Whilst Mr X has been aware of the matter he has complained to us about for more than 12 months I exercised discretion to consider his complaint back to 2018 as the problem was an ongoing one and Mr X claimed he was being caused significant problems leaving and entering his property.
8. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and took account of the comments I received before reaching a final decision on the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. A highways authority (in this case the Council) can place restrictions on traffic in its area by imposing a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). A Council may use a TRO to restrict parking on specific roads. The highways authority must consult certain organisations, such as the emergency services and some public bodies, and it may also consult local residents. It is also required to advertise any intended TRO and if it decides to revoke a TRO must also follow this process.
10. The Council has a Traffic Management Unit (TMU) which comprises Council officers from its engineering and legal teams and officers from the police and emergency services. The Unit considers all proposals which may require a TRO and ensures proposals are safe, legal usable and will not unduly affect the operation of the highway.

What happened

11. Mr X has been complaining about neighbours and others parking in a space on the opposite side of the road in front of his drive for some time. He says that people parking there makes it very difficult for him to manoeuvre on and off his drive and this is a particular problem for him as he says he has long term health problems which affect his ability to look behind when manoeuvring his car.
12. The Council confirms that Mr X has contacted the Council about this issue on many occasions.
13. The Council says it has considered the situation from two perspectives: whether there are any road/traffic management measures it can take, and whether there is an anti-social behaviour element that can be addressed. I shall address each of these separately.

Traffic/road management

14. The Council says there used to be a TRO which provided for restricted parking with double yellow lines in the space on the opposite side of the road to Mr X’s property. However, the TRO for these was revoked before the property in which Mr X lives was built some years ago. There have therefore been no restrictions on that parking space since Mr X has lived there.
15. The Council confirms there are no formal restrictions preventing parking in the space in question. The Council confirms also that there are some remaining faint yellow lines that remain on the area of road in question but that these are no longer in operation as the relevant TRO was revoked some years ago.
16. The Council recognises that sometimes people parking opposite Mr X’s house do so by parking partly on the pavement and says it has written to local residents about this. In addition, the Council says that it has written to the housing association that owns Mr X’s property to suggest that it considers making changes to the fencing on the edge of Mr X’s property as changing this may help when driving into and out of his property. The Council also wrote to a local children’s activity group to ask it to ask that parents park considerately when dropping off and collecting their children as they use the space to park when dropping off and collecting their children. The Council points out that the police can be contacted if a vehicle is parked in such a way as to cause an obstruction and says it has advised Mr X of this. The Council confirms that in response to Mr X’s reports about parking it has visited the site and observed the parking issues he has reported. It also says that the Traffic Management Unit considered Mr X concerns at one of its meetings but did not consider additional parking restrictions were warranted. The Council wrote to Mr X about this in March 2018.

Anti-social behaviour

17. In his correspondence with the Council in early 2018 Mr X described the parking as a hate crime, harassment and anti-social behaviour. The Council’s anti-social behaviour team confirms that Mr X contacted it directly in April 2018.
18. An officer from the Council’s anti-social behaviour team visited Mr X about this in May 2018. The officer’s view was that the neighbour’s parking was not blocking Mr X from entering or leaving his property though he was unable to drive out in one go, having to manoeuvre slightly by reversing once before completing the move. He also noted that the neighbour was permitted to park in the space opposite. He asked the relevant Council team whether there was any possibility of preventing the neighbour from parking in the space. This has been considered by the Council as described above but is not considered the best way to resolve the issues as it would cause issues with others and require enforcement. The anti-social behaviour team does not consider the matter amounts to antisocial behaviour and told Mr X this in April/May 2018 and again when he contacted them again in December 2018.
19. Additionally, the Council says that the housing association that owns Mr X’s property has offered to arrange mediation between Mr X and his neighbour to try to resolve matters but Mr X’s neighbour does not want to participate in this. This is not a matter for the Council but I refer to it as it has been offered as an alternative way to try to resolve the ongoing issue.

Is the Council at fault and has any fault caused injustice?

20. The Council has considered Mr X’s concerns about the parking opposite his home. It is not the case that Mr X cannot leave or enter his home by car if someone is parked opposite but it appears to be the case that he is unable to complete the manoeuvre in one go. The antisocial behaviour officer noted that he had to reverse slightly in order to get around the car opposite on leaving. I fully accept that the photographs and videos Mr X had provided demonstrate that the street is narrow and that this contributes to the tight turn required to enter and leave his drive by car when a car is parked opposite.
21. The Council confirms there is no restriction on the parking opposite so his neighbour or others are permitted to park in the space opposite Mr X’s house. Since this is the case the Council did not consider that people parking in the space amounts to antisocial behaviour. I can see the Council had grounds to reach this conclusion so do not consider there is fault in the Council’s refusal to pursue the matter on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. It did write to residents and other regular users of the parking in the area to be considerate in where they parked.
22. In terms of its consideration of whether the Council should introduce restrictions on the space, I am satisfied the Council properly considered this. It is not my role to consider whether its decisions were right or wrong in the absence of fault in they way it has considered this matter. I am satisfied that the Council considered Mr X’s request, it properly passed the matter on to its TMU which did not consider the grounds for making a new TRO to introduce restrictions was met.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There is no fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s concerns about parking in the space opposite his home.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman