Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove waiting restrictions outside a retail shop. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and the Council’s decision has not caused serious injustice to Mr Z because the restrictions were in place before he bought the shop.

The complaint

1. Mr Y says for Mr Z the Council introduced double yellow lines outside a shop he bought in 2018 with the intention of renting it out. He says the double yellow lines are a deterrent to potential customers and as a result three tenants have cancelled their contracts with Mr Z.
2. Mr Y also says the Council has refused to follow his suggestion to create two parking bays with a maximum wait time of 15 minutes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr Z and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council says it has reviewed the location and has determined that the traffic regulation order should not be changed. It has explained its reasons, even if Mr Y and Mr Z disagree with them. A letter from the Council to the previous owner in 2016 made it clear it had considered the circumstances.
9. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter to justify our involvement. We cannot question the Council’s decision without evidence of fault in the way it made it. Mr Y, Mr Z and others may hold a different view to that of the Council, but that is not evidence of fault.
10. We could not attribute the lack of customers at the shop to the presence of the double yellow lines.
11. It is also the case Mr Z bought this property with the double yellow lines already present in 2018. It was his responsibility as a purchaser to consider whether the investment was likely to succeed. This means we cannot say the Council’s decision not to remove the double yellow lines has caused the injustice Mr Z claims.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and the Council’s decision has not caused the injustice claimed by Mr Z because the circumstances have not changed since he bought the premises involved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman