Summary: Dr X complains about the Council’s decision to implement parking restrictions outside his home. He says the Council did not invite him to the committee meeting, did not tell him how it considered his objections, and did not tell him about the decision to implement the restrictions. We find fault with the Council. However, the faults identified did not cause Dr X any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about the Council’s decision to implement parking restrictions outside his home. He says the Council did not:
• invite him to the committee meeting;
• tell him how it considered his objections to the parking restrictions; and
• tell him about the decision to implement the restrictions.

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’. 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)
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)
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 with Dr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Dr X and the Council for their comments. I considered the comments received by the Council. Dr X did not provide any comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

8. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is a legal document, which allows the highway authority to regulate the speed, movement, and parking of vehicles.
9. The procedures for creating a TRO are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Regulation 16 requires councils to make the TRO within two years of when the notice of proposals were first published.
13. Regulation 17 states that within 14 days of making an order, the council will notify the making of the order in writing to any person who has objected to the order, and has not withdrawn the objection, under regulation 8. Where the objection has not been wholly acceded to, the notification shall include the reasons for the decision.

What happened

14. In December 2018, the Council gave notice for its proposal for a traffic regulation order (TRO). The Council also placed public notices in the areas affected by the proposed TRO. Part of the proposals included putting in parking restrictions on the road outside Dr X’s property.
15. Dr X sent an objection to the proposed TRO. Dr X raised concerns the proposed waiting restrictions outside his property were not needed to maintain access and would have a severe and disproportionate effect on resident’s quality of living. Dr X also highlighted the restrictions would remove seven parking spaces making it likely he could not park on his road at all.
16. The Council completed a report which outlined the background for the proposal and the scheme of restrictions proposed. The report also noted all the objections received by the Council to the proposed TRO. The report noted that despite the objections, the overall benefit of the scheme outweighed the points of concerns raised.
17. In November 2019, the Council considered the TRO proposals at a committee meeting. The minutes of the meeting showed there was a discussion about the objections that had been received. It showed the committee members raised concerns that not all objections had been resolved and the proposals could cause displacement issues. The Council said it had done work to reduce the placement issues as much as possible.
18. Dr X said the Council did not invite him to the committee meeting and did not consider the objection at all. He said there was no evidence it had been considered. The Council said it did not invite Dr X to the committee meeting.
19. Following the discussion, the Committee decided to approve the proposed TRO.
20. The Council said the TRO was made in January 2021.

Analysis

21. The Council must follow the regulations set out within the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to make a TRO.
22. The evidence shows the Council gave notice for its TRO proposals in December 2018. This was in line with regulation 7.
23. I note Dr X’s view the Council had not considered his objection. However, the evidence available shows the Council did consider his objection. This is because the Council highlighted his objection within the report it produced for the committee. The committee also discussed the objections received and raised some concerns that not all objections had been resolved.
24. It is not for the Ombudsman to say the Council had not considered the objection enough. The law requires the Council to consider objections received. However, there is no guidance or requirement as to how much consideration the Council needs to give or evidence. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot say the Council has not considered the objection enough if there is evidence it has considered the objection.
25. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council considered the objections received, including Dr X's, in line with regulation 13. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision to approve the TRO because the decision was made properly.
26. The Council accepted it did not invite Dr X to the committee meeting. The law does not require the Council to invite objectors to committee meetings. However, it would have been good practice for the Council to do so as it would have allowed Dr X the opportunity to listen to the discussions.
27. Regulation 16 requires councils to make the TRO within two years of when the notice of proposals are first published. The Council first published the notice of proposals in December 2018 and made the order in January 2021. Therefore, this was just outside the two year period.
28. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on the lawfulness of the TRO; that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman applies a fundamentally different test and I simply need to come to a view on whether there was administrative fault in the way the Council made the order.
29. I am satisfied there was administrative fault because the Council did not make the TRO in line with the regulations.
30. However, the fault did not cause any injustice to Dr X. This is because if the Council had made the order within the two years, so if the fault had not occurred, there would still be a TRO in place. Therefore, Dr X would be in the same position as he is now.
31. Finally, the Council did not tell Dr X it had made the TRO in writing, in line with regulation 17. This is fault.
32. However, I do not consider the fault identified caused any significant injustice to Dr X. This is because if the Council had notified him, so if the fault had not occurred, the Council would still have made the TRO. Therefore, Dr X would still be in the same position as he is now.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I find fault with the Council for not making the TRO in line with the regulations and for failing to notify Dr X of the making of the TRO. However, the faults identified did not cause Dr X any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman