Summary: The Council did not consider Mr B’s request to extend double yellow lines outside his premises, in accordance with its policy. It also failed to consider the policy when Mr B complained to the Council about this. The Council’s failings have left Mr B uncertain that it has properly assessed his request, and put him to additional time and trouble pursuing matters. The Council has agreed a means to remedy the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to properly consider his request for a traffic regulation order to extend double yellow lines on the road at the entrance of his business premises.
2. People parking at the entrance of his premises is making it difficult for vehicles to enter and leave his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I considered the comments of both parties before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and the Council’s policy

6. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives councils the power to make traffic regulation orders (TRO). A TRO can impose waiting time restrictions including double yellow lines to stop vehicles waiting there at any time.
7. The Council’s policy says it will normally only consider new waiting restrictions:
• Where a road safety problem has been identified by accident studies and it is clear that an actual reduction in accidents would follow a TRO.
• Where obstruction of the highway or of visibility at junctions occurs on a frequent and extremely severe basis, particularly where public transport and emergency service vehicles are affected.
• Where commerce and industry are severely affected by the presence of parked cars.
• Where the installation of TROs is essential to provide the maximum benefit for capital investment.

What happened

8. Mr B bought commercial premises. Double yellow lines extend close to the entrance of the premises, but not as far as the entrance itself. This means that people are parking in the entrance to the premises and he says it is making it difficult for cars to get in and out. Mr B asked the Council to make a TRO to extend the line up to the entrance so that cars could not park there.
9. The Council refused Mr B’s request. It said that due to the cost of TRO’s it would only consider making one where there had been three or more accidents in the last three years resulting in personal injury; where emergency services and/ or bus services are severely obstructed by parking on a regular basis; and where there are problems using the junction by emergency services and/ or bus services. Mr B’s request did not meet any of these criteria, and so the Council refused his request. The Council also mentioned that it thought the previous owner had objected to extending the double yellow lines when they were first put in.
10. Mr B asked the Council to reconsider. He said the Council had not fully assessed the request and it should not rely on the previous owner’s objections. He asked whether the Council had visited the site. He said the Council had not taken into account that he might require HGV access and also had planning permission to install a new fence and entrance gate but could not do so while the cars were parked there. The Council said it had nothing to add to its decision and suggested Mr B make a formal complaint.
11. Mr B complained to the Council. The Council responded that it had not relied on the previous owner’s objections, but the request did not meet the strict criteria it had set out. It acknowledged that the parking may impede HGV access if that was needed and may impede Mr B’s plans to install an access gate, but it noted that this would have been clear when Mr B bought the premises. The Council also said that the complaints process was not the way to appeal against a decision as it could not override the highways department’s decision. The Council referred Mr B to the Ombudsman.
12. Mr B went back to the department. He asked it to confirm that it would not extend the double yellow lines, despite these running to the entrances of other premises on the estate; that it had not visited the site; that the emergency services had not reported any concerns; and that it is aware Mr B has planning permission for a new fence and gate.
13. The Council again said that Mr B’s request did not meet the criteria. It added that it sometimes considers requests where it is part of similar works in the location, but there were no plans for more parking restrictions in the area. It confirmed there had been no reports of emergency services having access issues or of any highways incidents.
14. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my investigation, the Council says that it will reconsider the request once the changes to the gate and fence have been made.
15. The Council has also explained that it received accident reports from the Police and has a dedicated team with whom it liaises regarding parking incidents. The Council has not confirmed that it liaised with this team when it considered Mr B’s request, and there is no evidence on its files that it did so.

Analysis

16. It is for the Council to decide whether to make a TRO to extend the double yellow lines. The Ombudsman cannot make this decision on its behalf. However, there was fault by the Council in how it assessed Mr B’s request.
17. The Council has not assessed the application against the criteria set out in its policy. The Council told Mr B that there needs to be at least three accidents involving a personal injury within the last three years, but this is not a criterion of the policy. The Council also failed to consider whether the parked cars were severely impacting business, which is a criterion of the policy.
18. There is no evidence that the Council checked the incident information it receives from the Police or liaised with anyone about the parking related incidents. The Council has not shown that it considered whether the parking here had impeded emergency services
19. There is no evidence that the Council visited the site. It could assess the request using publicly available street view images, but it should consider whether this allows an accurate assessment of the issues.
20. The Council did not consider the complaint properly. I can see that the complaints process is not an appeal process by which a decision might be changed. However, it is within the remit of the complaints process to make sure that decisions are made in accordance with the relevant policy (or it has explained its reasons for departing from the policy). In this case, the Council’s did not consider this when it responded to Mr B’s complaint. In response to my investigation, the Council says it now ensures that complaints about how it has applied a policy are considered by the relevant department. In addition, the Council has told me that it will reconsider the request when the gate has been installed, but it is not clear that it has told Mr B this.
21. I cannot say that had the Council considered Mr B’s request properly then it would have decided to extend the double yellow lines. However, its failure to properly assess the request has left Mr B uncertain that the Council might have approved his request. The Council’s shortcomings have also caused Mr B time and trouble as he had to pursue the matter with the Council and the Ombudsman. I acknowledge that the Council has offered to review its decision, but it is not clear why it should wait until Mr B has installed the access gate.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr B. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Reconsider Mr B’s request to extend the double yellow lines with reference to the Council’s policy.
• Share this decision with relevant staff and remind them that they should assess TRO requests in accordance with the policy, and that the complaints process extends to complaints that policies have not been properly applied.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. There was fault causing injustice to Mr B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman