Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to extend double yellow lines around his property. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to extend double yellow lines around his property. He says this is causing issues with traffic management and congestion by parked cars and a lack of visibility when he exits his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by him and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Concerned about traffic problems caused by an influx of visitors to his area and their parked cars, Mr X contacted the Council to request that it look to extend further around his property the temporary double yellow lines it had introduced in his area in response to residents’ concerns about nuisance parking during the pandemic lockdown.
8. The Council told Mr X that because of his unique situation, it would extend the lines between his driveways to allow increased visibility when pulling out onto the road.
9. As no further action was taken, Mr X complained to the Council which then told him that while it had extended the lines temporarily in response to residents’ concerns, it did not consider it was necessary to extend them further between his driveways.
10. In response to my query about the apparent contradiction in what Mr X had been told, the Council clarified that the Executive member for highways had originally agreed to Mr X’s request to extend the lines but on later speaking to the Parish Council and understanding the history, he changed his decision and told Mr X of this. It further explained that the issue of increased numbers of cars parking locally during the pandemic lockdown and causing a nuisance had been addressed by the temporary lining scheme. It said its engineers had assessed the location of Mr X’s property but did not consider parking between his two entrances would cause a safety issue although it is aware Mr X does not agree with this assessment.

Assessment

11. While I note there was initially some confusion about what the Council was doing, it has clarified it will not be extending further the lines between Mr X’s driveways. I understand Mr X does not agree with this decision but it is not our role to review the merits of this decision. We cannot question a council’s decision if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant information and evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman