Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to take effective action to ensure he can access the rear of his property by car. He said this is causing him inconvenience. The Council was at fault when it provided Mr X with misleading information. It should pay him £100 to remedy the injustice this caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he paid extra money when he bought his council house so he could access the garage at rear of his property by car. He says the Council has failed to take appropriate action to ensure this access remains open.
2. Mr X says that as a result, cars often block the road to the rear to his property causing him inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of his complaint.
6. I spoke to and made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s petition process

8. The Council has a petition process. This means a resident can petition the Council on a number of matters, including a request for new road markings. A petition needs 20 signatures to be valid.
9. Once the Council has received a valid petition, unless it relates to planning or licensing matters, the matter will be heard at the relevant committee meeting.

What happened

10. Mr X bought his property from the Council under the Right to Buy scheme over 30 years ago. At the time, he paid the Council an additional sum of money for a vehicular right of way to the rear of his property so he could access his garage.
11. To access the rear of Mr X’s property, a vehicle must turn off a main road onto a much smaller road. The first part of this road is a public highway and as such comes under the remit of the Council in its role as the Highways Authority. The road then becomes part of a piece of land owned by the Council in its private capacity and from this point it does not form part of the public highway.
12. Mr X complained that cars often park on both the public highway and Council owned land in order to access shops and takeaways. When this happens, he cannot get through in his car and so cannot access the rear gates of his property.
13. In August 2018, Mr X’s councillor asked the Council if it would install yellow lines on both the public highway and the Council owned private land to prevent people from parking their cars and blocking his passage to his garage. The Council originally agreed and in March 2019 installed yellow lines as requested by Mr X.
14. However, the Council subsequently removed the double yellow lines from the public highway section of the road. The lines on the private land belonging to the Council remained in place.
15. In August 2019, Mr X complained to the Council. He said cars were again parking on both sides of the road and preventing him from exercising his legal right of access to his garage, which he had paid for. Mr X said he was disabled and needed access to his car at all time.
16. The Council responded in September 2019. It said that after installing the double yellow lines it had rechecked the plans and concluded the lines extended beyond the point the Council had originally intended. The Council said it could not install double yellow lines on a public highway and so it had removed them. It had kept the ones on the land it owned privately.
17. In response to my enquiries, the Council said in order to install double yellow lines on a public highway, it must obtain a traffic management order. The process for this would be for the Council to either receive a request from a resident which it would consider or to receive a petition which would go to the relevant committee. If either the request or petition were successful, the Council would then need to go through the process se down in law of advertising, considering and determining whether to grant a traffic management order.

My findings

18. The Council initially installed double yellow lines on a public highway without following the correct procedures to obtain a traffic management order. Although this is fault, it did not cause Mr X an injustice because he wanted the yellow lines. However, when the Council realised its mistake, it removed them.
19. When Mr X asked the Council to reinstall the lines, it refused and said it “could not” install double yellow lines on a public highway. This was factually incorrect and is fault. The Council can install double yellow lines, but it must first follow the correct process to consider a request or petition and then, if either is accepted, start the procedures to obtain a traffic management order. Therefore, the information the Council provided Mr X was misleading. It should have explained it needed a traffic management order to install the lines and advised him why it did not think it appropriate to do so. It would also have been good practice to have informed Mr X that he could petition the Council, although I stop short of finding fault with the Council for its failure to do so.
20. I cannot say whether Mr X experienced any injustice because of the Council’s fault. This is because the Council considered and refused Mr X’s request which it was entitled to do. And I do not know if Mr X could gain support from the 20 signatories required if he was to start a petition. However, the Council’s fault has put Mr X to unnecessary time and trouble in having to come to the Ombudsman. It should make him a financial payment to remedy this.

Agreed action

21. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to remedy the unnecessary time and trouble he had to take complaining to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman