• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant's reports of parking problems. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault with the Council, some of the issues raised are late and because we cannot achieve the outcome that the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains about how the Council dealt with his concerns about parking problems close to his home. Mr X says cars are mounting the pavement to park which poses a risk to pedestrians.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I have sent a draft version of this decision to Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. If a council wants to implement parking restrictions, such as yellow or red line markings, it must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).
6. Mr X lives on a high street opposite a shop. The road outside the shop has double yellow lines which mean no waiting and are enforced under a TRO. In 2007, the Council granted planning permission for the shop to install an ATM.

What happened

7. Mr X complained to the Council about the number of cars parking on the pavement outside the shop. He said the problem was made worse by the presence of the ATM.
8. Mr X wants the Council to replace the double yellow lines, with double red lines which mean cars cannot stop for any purpose.
9. Mr X also questioned if the issue of parking had been properly considered when planning approval had been granted for the ATM. Mr X wants the approval to be revoked.
10. The Council said it was aware of the issues Mr X raised and that regular patrols by enforcement officer were being carried out. It said the TRO had been added to a list of orders which would be reviewed in the coming year when it would investigate any alterations to the current restrictions.
11. The Council said that during the planning application process, for the installation of the ATM, it had consulted with the Highways Authority who had not raised any objections. The Council said it could not revoke the decision.

Assessment

12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his request for changes to parking restrictions outside the shop. This is because the Council has agreed to carry out a review of the TRO, when it will investigate what, if any, changes need to be made. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s approach.
13. I will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consider the planning application for the ATM. This is because permission was granted some 14 years ago and is therefore late. I see no reason why Mr X could not have raised concerns he had with the application sooner.
14. Finally, I note the outcomes that Mr X is seeking from his complaint. We cannot order councils to revoke granted planning permissions. We therefore cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants. This is further reason why I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, the complaint is late, and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page