Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install double yellow lines on the road outside the complainant’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss A, complained about the Council’s decision to install double yellow lines on the road outside her 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 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Miss A has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss A told us the Council plans to install double yellow lines on her road. She said the Council’s communication has been poor and notices were only put up on one side of the road. Miss A told us the Council’s decision has caused great stress and anxiety and she will find it difficult to park outside her property.
7. The Council considered Miss A’s complaint. It said when changes are made to roads in the borough, these are done on the basis of Traffic Management Orders (TMOs). It said it issued consultation letters to all residents on the road and installed site notices. Miss A said she did not receive this letter. But the Council said Miss A engaged with the consultation by emailing her objections. The Council said it considered information and feedback from its own waste service team and fire station, which highlighted access issues. Miss A questions why the Council have not commented on other alternative proposals made such as bay parking. She told us she wants this installed rather than the proposed double yellow lines.
8. Miss A told us the Council’s has failed to respond to all the issues she raised in her complaint. She questions why decisions to install double yellow lines on certain roads in the Borough have been withdrawn. Miss A wants an explanation as to why residents on the road she lives on are being treated differently.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We have to look at whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is very limited value in comparing what has happened on one road with what has happened in another one. Each situation, including accessibility issues, must be considered individually. In the case of the decision affecting the road Miss A lives on, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process. This is because the Council has followed the process we would expect when reaching its policy decision. Miss A was able to object to the proposal. It was then for the Council to consider all the representations it received and to decide how much weight to attach to them in each individual location. We are not an appeal body with powers to overrule or amend TMOs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss A’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman