Nottinghamshire County Council (19 007 963)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 09 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his request for parking restrictions. There was no fault by the Council, although it could have explained its decision more fully in response to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his request for parking restrictions to be implemented near to the entrance of garages that he uses. He says the current access is concealed and there have been accidents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to his complaint.
  2. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X rents a garage. He raised concerns about the safety of the access to the garages from the highway. Mr X called the Council in July 2019 to set out his concerns. He stated cars regularly park opposite the entrance. When he approaches he indicates to turn right into the entrance for the garages. He says cars behind him do not slow down sufficiently, believing that he is overtaking the parked cars, rather than turning. He is worried that this will cause an accident.
  2. Mr X asked the Council to consider putting in double yellow lines opposite the entrance to help improve safety.
  3. The Council wrote to Mr X on 5 August. It explained the costs of implementing restrictions were significant. A traffic regulation order is required for changes to the highway. The Council stated each one costs between £3000 and £4000. For this reason, it has a set of criteria for when restrictions will be considered. These are where:
    • three or more accidents occurred in the last three years which have resulted in personal injury;
    • emergency services and/or bus services are being severely obstructed by the parking on a regular basis;
    • there are problems entering into or out of junctions by emergency services and/or bus services, and these have regularly been reported;
    • the parking restriction is likely to be respected by drivers and will have a significant beneficial effect on the area and there would not be a significant transfer of the parking to adjacent areas;
    • the required public consultation on the restriction would not result in significant objections.
  4. The Council assessed Mr X’s request for parking restrictions, but it decided the issues set out above were not evident at the site. So, it declined the request.
  5. The Council told me the only way for someone to challenge a decision not to impose restrictions was through the complaints process.
  6. Mr X complained about the decision on 7 August. He did not believe the Council looked at the issue properly. He stated there had been three or more accidents within the last three years and something need to be done. He said there was one recent accident. Mr X also told the Council that buses had to mount the pavement to get past the parked cars which put pedestrians in danger. He asked the Council to look into the matter further.
  7. On 9 August the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It stated it had reviewed the previous response and noted the Council’s policies had been explained. The Council stated the complaints team’s role was to consider if there was likely to be any change to the situation if it put someone’s complaint through the Council’s complaints process. The Council stated the complaints team would only consider if there was fault in process or in the actions of council workers. The team could not act as an appeal body.
  8. The complaints team told Mr X it had decided not to consider Mr X’s concerns through the complaints process in this case because the District Highways Manager had reviewed his request and considered it was in line with the highway criteria. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman as a result.
  9. The Council provided us with copy correspondence. It also explained the actions it had taken to consider Mr X’s request for parking restrictions.
  10. The Council stated it’s approach was to consider accident statistics and the number, origin and frequency of complaints about issues in the area. It also considered whether emergency services or transport providers had raised issues.
  11. In Mr X’s case the Council stated its Crash Investigation Team provided data. They stated there was no data about accidents at that end of the road Mr X complained about. It looked at the period January 2016 to 31 July 2019.
  12. The Council stated neither emergency services or transport providers had contacted them with any complaints about the area Mr X was concerned with. The Council stated it had considered Mr X’s report properly.

Was there fault by the Council

  1. I found there was no fault by the Council here. The Council has a set of criteria for considering whether it should apply parking restrictions when someone raises a concern. There is evidence that the Council considered these when deciding not to agree to install the parking restrictions Mr X requested. The Council found the accident data did not support pursuing restrictions and concerns had not been raised by emergency services or transport providers.
  2. I found that the response to Mr X’s complaint could have been improved. The complaints process is the only way for residents to challenge a decision to decline to implement parking restrictions. When Mr X complained and asked the Council to reconsider, he did not simply disagree with the Council. He stated that there were accidents in the area and he believed his request may meet the council’s criteria. The Council only stated in response that an officer reviewed it and decided the criteria was not met. It did not address what Mr X had said, and didn’t provide background information, so he was unclear why his request was rejected.
  3. In response to the Ombudsman the Council provided some background and set out the information it replied upon and the investigations it carried out.
  4. I am satisfied the Council’s decision was properly made. However, it could have better explained its decision in response to Mr X’s complaint.
  5. Although I recognise Mr X feels parking restrictions would improve safety and would be justified, councils have limited resources, so they have to prioritise how funds are used. The Council’s criteria is concerned with accidents which result in personal injury. It has shown it examined accident data when deciding not to pursue parking restrictions. There was no fault in the way the Council decided Mr X’s request for restrictions to be implemented, so I have completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings