Summary: Mr X complains the Council painted parking restriction markings on the road outside his home that are faulty, causing drivers to block his access. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council has marked a parking bay too close to his drive. Mr X says this means that he frequently cannot access or exit his drive because drivers park in front of his home, blocking the dropped kerb. He says this has caused him inconvenience and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the complaint and the correspondence he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Traffic Regulation Orders

5. If a council wants to restrict parking on its highways, it must make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The council must follow the procedures set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Local Authorities Traffic Order Regulations 1996. Section 122 of the Act at says a council has a duty to use these powers to secure safe and convenient traffic movement including pedestrians and to provide suitable and adequate parking spaces.

What happened

6. In 2006 the Council made a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to create a limited waiting area on Mr X’s road. The Council originally painted the road using mainly single yellow lines to demark the limited waiting area. The Council also marked a small designated parking bay area further down the road.
7. Mr X did not experience any problems due to this.
8. However, in 2019 the Council resurfaced the road and replaced the original single yellow lines with white dashed lines to denote parking bays. The Council explains the changes were due to
• Updates to the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 which said limited waiting restrictions should now be painted on the road to show a parking place with a dashed white parking bay.
• The original parking bay markings painted in 2006 were too short and deviated from the TRO. The Council had corrected the markings to comply with the TRO.
9. Mr X says the new road markings include a short parking bay beside his dropped kerb, too short for a standard car to park. As a result, he says some drivers park partially in front of his drive in order park within the parking lines. He says that he has not been able to drive over his dropped kerb and leave his home, sometimes for up to one hour. He also says that drivers argue with him, and this has affected his mental health.
10. Mr X complained to the Council that the new road markings caused drivers to park in front of his drive. He asked the Council to change the markings, removing the short bay near his home.

The Council replied explaining the new markings were correct as it had previously marked yellow lines which were too short. The Council said it could not legally remove the parking bay as to do so it must make a new TRO. The Council did not consider it could pay for this.

11. The Council said that when Mr X had first raised the issue the Council had marked an H bar on the road in front of his dropped kerb to deter drivers. While the Council could not enforce the H bar marking it said it was an offence to obstruct a dropped kerb and civil enforcement officers could issue a PCN. The Council said the H bar strengthened the restriction.
12. Mr X complained further that the parking bay was too short for a car to park. Therefore, cars overhung his drive and stayed for up to 30 minutes. He said the parking outside his home also affected the car park exit to a small supermarket opposite his home, causing congestion.
13. The Council replied it had changed the road markings and corrected a mistake in when it resurfaced the road. The previous yellow line was not compliant with the TRO. The Council explained that “over the length of a parking bay some distances between driveways may be quite short, but all drivers are obliged to recognise where it is suitable to park in accordance with the Highway Code”. The Council said it had discussed whether it could change the road markings. However, it said it needed strong justification to change a TRO. It said the cost of making a new TRO would be prohibitive and a prolonged process. And it considered there were enforcement action options available that addressed Mr X’s concerns. Its Civil enforcement officers could enforce against drivers who blocked a dropped kerb.
14. The Council responded to our enquiries confirming that it costs £15,000 to amend TRO. The Council gave its procedure regarding enforcement officers issuing a PCN for parking in front of a dropped kerb. The Council confirms parking in front of a driveway and blocking the driver in is an offence without the owner’s consent. The Council said that it would not generally review a TRO unless there was a change in road layout or specific changes that caused a danger to the public. In this case the Council says it has not received any reports which would prompt it to review the TRO.

Analysis

15. There is no apparent fault by the Council in correcting and updating the road markings to ensure they are compliant with the TRO.
16. I have considered the Council’s explanations regarding the driver’s responsibility to ensure they park in accordance with the Highway Code. The Council has taken action to deter drivers by painting an H bar in front of Mr X’s driveway. I have not found fault here.
17. While Mr X says that a civil enforcement officer told him he would not issue a PCN for drivers parking in front of the driveway, he did not have details or sufficient evidence of this. The Council has confirmed its officers can issue a PCN and it has given details of its procedure. I have not found fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman