Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate and act on his concerns about parking on lanes near his house. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X clearly and consistently. This caused Mr X avoidable stress and frustration. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate and act on his concerns about parking on lanes near his house.
2. He says the parking makes it hard for him to get to his home and makes the lane impassable for emergency and refuse vehicles.

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. 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)
4. 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)

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. For parking restrictions to be enforceable by council traffic wardens, they must be part of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This includes road markings such as double yellow lines.
8. Police can remove vehicles causing an obstruction, regardless of whether there is a TRO in place.
9. The procedures for creating a TRO are set out in the ‘the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The process is lengthy and includes publication of proposals, opportunity for objections and creation of the order.

What happened

10. Mr X lives near three narrow lanes. He says parked cars regularly obstruct access. One of the lanes, Road A, has old double yellow lines on it. Mr X says they have been there at least 25 years.
11. In March 2019, Mr X raised his concerns with his MP.
12. The Council responded to say parking on Road A is restricted because it is narrower. Roads B and C are not suitable for parking restrictions because the public use it to visit the local countryside and railway station.
13. Mr X continued to contact the Council. In October 2019, the Council said:
• the restrictions on Road A are ‘advisory’. It said because of this, the Council could not enforce them or repaint the lines;
• it would continue to monitor the situation.
14. In January 2020, Mr X complained to the Council. The Council responded two weeks later and said:
• the roads are not suitable for parking restrictions;
• a Highways officer visited the area and found the cars did not cause a hazard;
• it accepted the parked cars may cause an issue at times but did not feel it required action by the Council; and
• Mr X could contact the police if a car caused an obstruction.
15. Mr X responded to the Council and questioned how the double yellow lines could be advisory. He says he checked with the Police who confirmed advisory double yellow lines do not exist.
16. In May 2020, the Council said it would ask a contractor to remark the lines, but they would remain advisory.
17. In its response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it used the term ‘advisory’ because the Road A is not in a TRO. Therefore, the double yellow lines are unenforceable. It said it offered to repaint the lines as a goodwill gesture to Mr X.
18. The Council is amending the TRO’s in its area. It intends to publish its proposal to include Road A in a TRO in late 2020.

Findings

19. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it is made using the correct process. In making its decision not to include Roads B and C in a TRO, the Council considered the level of obstruction during a site visit. It also considered the impact parking restrictions would have on the surrounding area. The Council followed the correct procedure and is therefore not at fault.
20. Councils can only paint double yellow lines where there is a valid TRO in place. The Council has not yet completed the amended TRO which includes Road A. Its offer to repaint the lines is fault. However, it did not cause Mr X any injustice. If the Council repainted the lines, it may have deterred parking even though the Council could not enforce the restrictions.
21. The Council is currently amending a TRO to include Road A. This will make the double yellow lines there enforceable by Council officers. This resolves Mr X’s concerns with that road.
22. The Council’s communication with Mr X has been unclear and at times contradictory. It first said parking on Road A was restricted and then unenforceable. It failed to explain why it could not enforce the double yellow lines. This was fault. This caused Mr X frustration and stress and meant he spent time pursuing the matter with the Council, his MP and police.

Back to top

Agreed actions

23. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the unclear information it provided.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have closed this complaint. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman