Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Traffic Regulation Order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council predetermined the outcome of consultation on a proposed Traffic Regulation Order and gave him a legitimate expectation there would be no double yellow lines on the road outside his home.

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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s responses to his complaint and the published Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B complained to us previously about the Council’s actions regarding the painting of double yellow lines outside his home and its failure to remove them. This left him unable to park across the dropped kerb in front of his property. The Council had agreed to exclude the area outside his home but then went ahead with the work.
6. The Ombudsman decided not to investigate Mr B’s previous complaint because the Council had confirmed it would remove the lines.
7. Mr B told us his parish council had discussed the previous proposed TRO at length. Mr B said he also had direct contact with councillors and the Council’s highways service in which they discussed his objection. Mr B told us the Council’s consultation process on the subsequent proposed TRO was different. The Council publicised it by way of a notice on a lamppost rather than by post.
8. Mr B said, although the Council had told him the parish council had asked for parking restrictions, he has not found any record in the parish council minutes of such a request. He has found a comment from his parish councillor saying he was not aware of the proposal.
9. Mr B said there is evidence of the Council’s complete disregard for his objection because it failed to view an on-line video he had submitted. When the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint it explained why officers could not access his video. Nevertheless, the Council said it had emailed him responding to the points he had raised. The Council also said it would consider his video if he sent a link which did not require a log in. In those circumstances it is not possible to say the Council had complete disregard for what Mr B had said. It was not fault for the Council to take account of the requirements of the Highway Code.
10. Being predisposed towards a particular view on a proposal is not the same as predetermining it. A council must be willing to consider an objection rather than clearly expressing that it has reached a decision and nothing will change its mind. When the Council wrote to Mr B in May 2020 it said it had not at that point reached a formal decision and it would consider all the information supplied. So there is not enough evidence of predetermination in this case.
11. Because the Council had previously decided that it would not install double yellow lines on the road outside Mr B’s home, he had an expectation the situation would not change. But there was nothing to stop the Council reconsidering the matter. It is evident from the information Mr B provided that although his parish councillor had said he was not aware of the consultation in 2020, he was clearly in support of the proposed measure. It was not fault for the Council to look at the measure again when there was local support for it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman