Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about extended zig-zag lines outside a school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council extended the zig-zag lines outside a school which has led to her drive being blocked. She says the original length of the lines was fine and there were no safety issues. Mrs X wants the Council to return the lines to their original length.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint replies and photographs of the road showing the extended lines. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs X lives near a school. The Council increased the length of the zig-zag lines outside the school in response to requests from some residents and to improve visibility and safety. There are 5 metres between the end of the extended lines and the point at which Mrs X’s kerb drops. The zig-zag lines comply with the law relating to traffic signs and there is no legal minimum distance between the end of zig-zag lines and a dropped kerb.
5. I have seen photographs which show the extended lines do not obstruct Mrs X’s drive. The Council told Mrs X she can report any vehicles that obstruct her drive. It also explained that the Council’s road safety officer had no concerns about the extended lines.
6. Mrs X says the extended lines encourage inappropriate parking, especially at school drop off and collections time. Her drive is sometimes blocked and she says her neighbour’s dropped kerb is behind the extended lines. Mrs X says many vehicles are larger than the space between the end of the lines and her drive.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council extended the lines to improve safety outside the school. The lines do not obstruct Mrs X’s drive and there is no legal minimum distance. The Council has re-measured the distance and confirmed there are 5 metres between the lines and where the kerb drops; if the Council were to install a parking bay it would ensure a length of 4.8 metres.
8. Mrs X’s drive is sometimes obstructed but this is caused by inappropriate parking not by the lines. The Council has told Mrs X how she can report inappropriate parking.
9. We are not an appeal body and it is for the Council, not us, to make decisions about whether to extend parking restrictions.
10. Finally, Mrs X says the lines are in front of her neighbour’s dropped kerb. This, however, does not affect Mrs X and the neighbour could make a complaint to the Council if they are unhappy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman