Transport for London (21 002 943)
Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 22 Jul 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s refusal to remove double red lines or install new parking bays on the road near his home. From the information we have seen, the Authority is not at fault.
The complaint
- The complainant, I shall call Mr D, says Transport for London (TfL):
- sent officers to a site meeting who were not aware of his concerns
- refused another site meeting; and cannot justify why the double red lines remain on one side of a road close to his home.
- He wants the red lines removed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
- The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr D and the Authority.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr D has been complaining to TfL for 3 years about the installation of double red lines on a road close to his home.
- TfL confirms double red lines were installed as part of a road safety scheme. The lines on one side of the road were removed when an existing parking bay was extended and changed to a loading/unloading bay. It also advised the red lines are there to ensure the flow of traffic from the side road onto a red route is smooth, with no parked cars obstructing traffic coming off or going onto the red route.
- TfL also confirms the red lines were included in a consultation on traffic management changes in the area inn 2016. It confirmed it did not receive any objections to the red lines in Mr D’s road.
- Mr D continued to contact TfL requesting the removal of the red lines or installation of another parking bay. He also asked for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2010.
- I understand Mr D is not happy with the arrangement. But TfL confirmed the red lines were installed as part of a wider road safety scheme. It confirmed a consultation took place and I have seen evidence of this published on its website. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Authority made its decision to install the red lines or change the parking bay.
- If Mr D believes the Authority has failed to provide information he has requested, it is reasonable to expect him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). This is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into Freedom of Information Act issues. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way TfL:
- decided to install the double red lines
- refused to remove the red lines on one side of the road
- extended a parking bay and changed it to a loading/unloading bay
- If Mr D believes the Authority is withholding information, it is reasonable to expect him to refer the matter to the ICO.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman