Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to introduce parking restrictions on a street where his son lives. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council failing to introduce double yellow lines on the street where his son lives which he asked them to provide in 2017. He says the Council has carried out unhelpful consultation and has still not implemented restrictions. He believes that the current parking arrangements present a hazard to emergency vehicles which cannot gain access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he complained in 2017 about parking on the street where his son lives. He told the Council that the street parking restricted access for emergency vehicles, but he was unable to get the local fire station officer to support his view.
6. The Council carried out consultation of residents in 2019 about a parking review but it says the response was divided and it did not pursue a traffic order to bring in new restrictions.
7. It says that Mr X is not a resident and cannot initiate a traffic order for parking on a street where he does not live. It requires a consensus from residents for the Council to consider if a traffic order is required. Once consultation has been completed the Council as highway authority has the ultimate say in whether or not an order will be introduced.
8. In 2020 the Council says it received a request for parking restrictions from a resident and this is currently being considered subject to further consultation with residents on the street.
9. We cannot consider Mr X’s original request for parking restrictions which was made outside the 12-month time limit for us to receive complaints. He is not a resident of the street in question and it will be a matter for the highway authority to decide once the consultation period is completed. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has undertaken the procedure for reviewing parking restrictions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman