Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing parking restrictions by way of a traffic order for an area which is does not own as part of the highway. We cannot determine points of law about the interpretation of legislation. The courts are the body which determines these matters. We will not exercise discretion to consider the traffic order process which took place more than 12 months ago. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council introducing a traffic regulation order variation in 2019 to include land next to a river where he sometimes parks. He says this has caused a 30-minute limit restriction and made it difficult for him to find alternative parking. He says the Council had no authority to include the land and that it should revert to the Broads Authority for parking enforcement as they manage the site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council included an area of riverside in a variation to a traffic order in 2019 which was beyond its lawful authority because it belongs to the Broads Authority. He says the previous authority’s parking enforcement could not be implemented under its byelaws and so it had asked the Council to include the land within highway parking enforcement. He challenged the Council’s legal right to do this under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.
7. The Council says it implemented the variation correctly in 2019 and that the legislation allows it to impose waiting restrictions where land involved is creating traffic congestion on the adjacent highway. It says the Broads Authority permitted the parking arrangement to help with congestion of the area generally and that this is permitted under the Act.
8. We will not investigate the process for introducing the Traffic Order Variation as this look place in 2019 and it was reasonable for any objectors to make objections during the consultation period from June that year. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
9. With regard to the Council’s powers to include the land within the traffic order, the Council says it has legal advice that the legislation allows this. We cannot determine points of law and Mr X would have to challenge this by way of judicial review if he believes the Council acted ultra vires because only a court can decide a legal definition of the legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing parking restrictions by way of a traffic order for an area which is does not own as part of the highway. We cannot determine points of law about the interpretation of legislation. The courts are the body which determines these matters. We will not exercise discretion to consider the traffic order process which took place more than 12 months ago. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman