Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide additional double yellow waiting restrictions on the highway opposite Mr X’s drive access. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the council refusing his request for it to paint restrictions on the road opposite his driveway to prevent vehicle sparking and making it difficult for him to manoeuvre when exiting. He says sometimes he cannot leave his home and he needs a to have a large 4-wheel drive vehicle because he is disabled and can’t access a smaller car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he has suffered from obstruction by cars parked opposite his driveway which makes exiting very difficult. He asked the Council to provide yellow no waiting lines to keep the space opposite free.
6. The Council considered his request and inspected the site. It decided that there was sufficient space for him to exit even if cars were parked. Opposition from neighbours to further restrictions made it decide that there was not sufficient need to warrant the creation of a traffic regulation order to introduce the restrictions Mr X wants.
7. Councils as highway authorities have discretionary powers to create traffic orders for new parking and waiting regulations if they believe this would benefit traffic management in an area. They must decide whether the request justifies the overall benefits and the expenditure involved in the legal process. In this case the Council did not support Mr X’s view. It advised him that if any vehicles directly obstructed his driveway he should contact the Police who can issue fixed penalties for obstruction offences.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide additional double yellow waiting restrictions on the highway opposite Mr X’s drive access. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman