Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to install double yellow lines. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consult when it decided to install double yellow lines on the road that she lived. She said the Council’s consultation was not meaningful and it had treated other residential streets in the area differently.
2. Mrs X states that being unable to park close to her home had left her feeling vulnerable walking between her property and car at night.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 cannot question whether an organisation’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)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council said it received concerns from its Waste Team, residents and the Fire Service about large vehicular access on the road where Mrs X lived. It investigated these concerns and determined that the Fire Service could not access the road when vehicles were parked on both sides. The Council decided to consult with residents about the introduction of parking restrictions. It said that as part of the consultation process it:
• Publicised the proposals for the parking restrictions on its website and in the press.
• Wrote to residents about the proposals.
• Put out site notices.
8. Following consultation, the Council decided to install double yellow lines down one-side of the road. It wrote to Mrs X and other residents and publicised the introduction of the restrictions in the press.
9. Mrs X complained. In its complaint response the Council:
• Accepted other roads in the area had on-kerb parking which it had permitted historically. It said the Council no-longer permitted on-kerb parking as it reduced the foot space available for pedestrians, including disabled and elderly residents.
• Said it had considered the views of all stakeholders and came to the conclusion that introduction of the yellow lines provided the only practical solution to ensure access of emergency service users. It said it had tried to maximise parking available alongside the other side of the road.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to install parking restrictions, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made that decision to justify our involvement. Therefore we will not investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman