Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council approved a Traffic Regulation Order to implement parking restrictions in Ms X’s street. There was poor communication and complaint handling which caused avoidable frustration and time and trouble complaining. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council agreed to parking restrictions outside her property and then failed to take action. As a result, neighbours are blocking their access which causes avoidable inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. The complaint involved some matters which took place more than 12 months before the complaint to us. Those matters are late and there is no good reason for me to investigate them. The timeframe for my investigation is the 12-month period before Mrs X complained to us. Where I have referred to older or more recent events, it is for context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) creates a traffic rule. TROs include speeding and parking restrictions. The Council gives residents six weeks to make representations in response to a draft TRO. The legal procedure for creating a TRO is in regulations which say:
• The authority must publish a notice in a local newspaper. It must also make sure the order is adequately publicised. This might include telling people the authority thinks may be affected, but it does not have to do this (regulation 7).
• People can object in writing within 21 days of the proposal and the authority must consider any objections against the order being published. However, the decision to make a traffic order is for the authority. The authority must write to anyone who objected under regulation 8 within 14 days, unless the objection has been withdrawn or accepted. The letter must include the reasons for the authority’s decision (regulation 8).
• An authority must consider objections (made under regulation 8) before it makes a traffic order (regulation 13).
• An authority cannot make an order until after the last day for objections (under regulation 8) or after two years from when the notice was published (regulation 16).
9. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils. We expect them to
• ‘Get it Right’. This means taking reasonable, timely decisions
• ‘Be citizen focussed’. This means dealing with people helpfully and promptly
• ‘Put things right’. This includes operating an effective complaints procedure.

What happened

10. Ms X complained to the Council and then to us in 2021 about a decision not to repaint an advisory road marking in her street. We didn’t investigate her complaint as we did not consider there was any evidence of fault.
11. Council issued a draft Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) notice for consultation in January 2025 saying it proposed to introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on the road outside Ms X’s property.
12. Ms X told me she had seen the notice about the draft TRO on a lamppost in her street. The draft order/notice told people how they could object. It said the purpose of the TRO was to address concerns raised about careless and indiscriminate parking blocking access to private entrances. The deadline for any objections was the start of February. Ms X emailed the Council later in February asking what had happened about the proposed TRO following the consultation period.
13. The Council received objections and an officer took various actions between March and June including correspondence and site visits. The purpose was to try and address the objector’s concerns.
14. The Council replied to Ms X’s email in May. It said it had reviewed all the responses from residents and the outcome was residents did not want the proposals taken forward. So the Council would not proceed with the TRO. The Council said she needed to report any vehicles causing an obstruction to its parking services team.
15. Ms X complained to the Council at the end of May. The Council said it would not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it had already responded to her previously. Ms X replied saying she had every right to complain to the Council. She asked the Council to reconsider its decision not to investigate her complaint.
16. The Council replied saying it would investigate her complaint. It said it was trying to find a resolution.
17. Ms X complained to us in June.
18. The Council issued a stage one response at the end of July. It said:
• The TRO process normally took between 9 and 12 months to complete usually because of the time it took to address objections.
• The Council had to work with objectors to try and resolve issues raised.
• A council officer made an error and wrongly thought the objector was the resident who requested the restrictions and so he wrongly removed the proposed restrictions from the scheme. This was an error.
• The objector’s concerns could not be resolved and so they had been included in an objection report to be presented to the decision maker.
• Once the decision was made, the Council would let Mrs X know the outcome.
19. The Council’s objection report of September 2025 said the scheme was originally consulted upon in June 2023. There was a time lapse, so it was consulted on again in January 2025. There were 12 objections to the overall scheme (the scheme included a lot of proposals in the area, not just those in Mrs X’s street)
20. Since complaining to us, in October 2025, the Council emailed Ms X saying it was sorry for the delay contacting her and it:
• Confirmed it had received one objection to the TRO
• Explained the chief officer considered the objections received and made a favourable decision on 8 October, this was published on 20 October
• Would send the lining works of the TRO to the contractor shortly
• Would ask the contractor to attend to the works outside her property as a priority.
21. The Council told me:
• Its complaint team failed to recognise Ms X had made a new complaint and it had made improvements to ensure this did not occur in future.
• It placed all TRO proposals on hold in 2024 because of a national requirement to update its paper system to a digital one.
22. The Council has just installed the double yellow lines in Mrs X’s street.

Findings

23. I have investigated the Council’s actions between June 2024 and June 2025. The parties have referred to earlier events, but these are late matters and so I have not considered them.
24. There was no fault by the Council in its decision making around the TRO. It consulted, addressed objections, presented the case for a decision and completed the works within a year of starting the consultation process. This is in line with law, guidance and the Council’s own timescale for completion of agreed works.
25. However, there was some fault by the Council in communication and complaint handling. This was not citizen focused or in line with our Principles of Good Administration as I have set out in paragraph nine. The Council:
• took three months (February to May 2025) to respond to Ms X’s request for an update. This was not timely.
• failed to recognise Ms X’s complaint was about a fresh matter. It also took too long to respond to the complaint. This was poor complaint handling.
• delayed telling Ms X its decision on the TRO despite saying in the complaint response that it would update her
26. The fault I have identified caused avoidable frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble complaining.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will issue:
• An apology. 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.
• A symbolic payment of £100 to reflect the avoidable frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble complaining.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council ha agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman