Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a traffic order which removed some disabled parking spaces from a street within the scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council making changes to parking in an area where she visits. She says the Council did not give sufficient consideration not the effect on disabled drivers and that she may have difficulty parking at venues in the area due to limited parking availability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says the Council introduced a traffic order for streets where she sometimes needs to park in disabled bays. She says some of the bays are being removed as part of the traffic scheme and that she did not have an opportunity to object. She believes the Council has not properly considered the impact on disabled drivers.
6. The Council says it carried out consultation over the proposals in 2022 and again in 2023-24 when the order was formally consulted on. It placed notices on the streets affected although Mrs X does not live in the immediate area. The Council received 185 comments on the proposals and the majority were in favour of the scheme. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 under which traffic regulation orders are introduced does not require a highway authority to consult individual residents or to place site notices, this is at the authority’s discretion.
7. The Council says that although some bays are being removed from the street which Mrs X has referred to, others are to be retained and the overall number of bays in the area will be increased.
8. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. There is no evidence that the Council failed to follow the procedures under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 for introducing the traffic regulation order.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a traffic order which removed some disabled parking spaces from a street within the scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman