Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr D’s application for parking restrictions to be implemented outside his property.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about how the Council dealt with his request for parking restrictions on the road outside his property. Mr D says:
• The consultation process was flawed, because he was not consulted.
• The Senior Traffic Engineer attended the wrong street and therefore recorded inaccurate information.
• The Council wrongly told him had no right to appeal.
• He has been told that the original decision, not to apply parking restrictions outside Mr D’s property, was made by a council officer involved in an inappropriate relationship with one of his neighbours.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr D’s complaint about his current application. I did not investigate matters relating to an alleged inappropriate relationship for the reason I have explained at the end of this document.

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. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information provided by Mr D; and
• considered information provided by the Council; and
• communicated with Mr D about his complaint.
7. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

8. The procedures for creating a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) are set out in the ‘the Regulations’ – the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
9. Consultation is covered under Regulation 7, which requires the publication of a notice in a local newspaper. A council must also ‘take such other steps as it may consider appropriate’ to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people affected, but this is not a requirement.
10. Regulation 8 allows any person to object in writing within 21 days of the publication of the proposal. Regulation 13 requires a council to consider any objections made under Regulation 8.

What happened

11. Mr D owns a property on a cul-de-sac, comprising of four properties. He contacted the Council and asked it to extend double yellow lines in the road to cover his property, allowing easier access for his vehicles.
12. The Council told Mr D it would add his request to proposed new TROs and would contact him again if the proposals go ahead.
13. The Council subsequently publicised the proposals in the local newspaper, and on a notice on Mr D’s street.
14. The Council received two objections, one of which mentioned being alerted to the application via the street notice. Both objections said that there had been minimal issues with parking on the road in the past and that the implementation of the proposed parking restrictions would negatively impact them.
15. The Senior Traffic Engineer recommended that based on the objections, the application should be refused. This was subsequently accepted at executive level.
16. After the consultation period closed Mr D contacted the Council who explained its decision. The Council subsequently wrote to the neighbours who objected to the application, informing them of its decision.
17. Mr D complained to the Council about its decision. The Council said that it had carried out its consultation, in accordance with the relevant legislation. It also said that its officer had visited Mr D’s street, had taken measurements and was satisfied it had reached the correct decision.
18. The Senior Traffic Engineer told the Ombudsman that he attended the site with a colleague and only took a single measurement so there was no need for him to take notes. He said he has also looked at the site on Google Streetview, and is satisfied that he attended the correct site.
19. In its response at the final stage of its complaints process, the Council told Mr D that he could approach the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its response.

Analysis

20. Mr D says the Council’s consultation process was flawed, as it wrote to his neighbours invited their objections, but did not write to him. However, I have not seen any evidence that any of the residents of Mr D’s street received such a letter.
21. The Council is only required to advertise the proposals in a local newspaper, which it did. It also made the decision to advertise the proposal via a street sign, which was seen by at least one of Mr D’s neighbours. I do not find fault in how the Council advertised the consultation.
22. When Mr D submitted his application, the Council told him it would contact him if the proposals go ahead. On balance I consider that this means it would contact him once the proposal was decided, which it did.
23. I do not consider this means it should have contacted him when the consultation period started, and nor is it required to. I therefore do not find fault in how the Council dealt with how it communicated with Mr D about the consultation process.
24. Mr D complained that the Senior Traffic Engineer did not take notes when visiting his street and speculated that he may have attended the incorrect location.
25. I am satisfied that the Senior Traffic Engineer has fully explained why he did not take notes and explained that he is sure he attended the correct address. Furthermore, he said one of Mr D’s neighbours approached him and asked him about the proposals. On balance, I am satisfied that there is not evidence of fault in how the site visit was conducted.
26. Finally, Mr D complains that he was told that he had no right of appeal to the Ombudsman.
27. Before investigating complaints, the Ombudsman expects complainants to have completed the Council’s complaints procedure. We also expect Council’s to signpost complainants to the Ombudsman, once they have exhausted this procedure.
28. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 2 of Mr D’s complaint, the Council told him he could appeal to the Ombudsman and provided information on how to do so. I therefore find no fault in how the Council communicated this to Mr D.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

30. I did not investigate Mr D’s allegation that the previous decision had been made by a council officer involved in an inappropriate relationship with his neighbour. This is because it relates to a decision made approximately 20 years ago and is therefore late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman