Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council put in double yellow line parking restrictions near her property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault, nor sufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a property near where the Council installed double yellow line parking restrictions to try to improve traffic flow. She complains the Council:
1. failed to take account of residents’ responses during the consultation process for the yellow lines;
2. failed to consider the unique characteristics of the location;
3. has put in a scheme which has not resolved the initial traffic problem.
2. Mrs X says residents have lost three parking spaces and the yellow lines have created congestion at term-time pick-up time from a nearby school.

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. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. The Council received comments about the planned parking restrictions from residents. Mrs X says the Council did not take proper account of them. The Council says officers considered them as part of the scheme’s process. In the officers’ professional judgement, the objections they received did not warrant them altering or stopping the proposed parking restrictions. We recognise the Council decided to proceed with the scheme, which was not the outcome Mrs X wanted. But that decision does not mean officers did not take account of objections to the scheme during the process.
8. We understand Mrs X considers the Council did not take account of the uniqueness of the site where they installed the lines. As part of the Council’s assessment of the scheme, officers visited the site. They noted the specific characteristics of the location, including the shape and dimensions of the highway, the nearby junctions and bus stop. They noted that drivers parking in the area which now has the lines in place would have been doing so in contravention of the Highway Code, due to its proximity to a road junction. It was for officers to determine the suitability of the scheme for the site by taking into consideration relevant highway matters.
9. The Council accepts the double yellow lines have not entirely resolved the original traffic issues. Officers have revisited the location to confirm this and may pursue additional works to further improve traffic flow. That the parking restriction scheme has not entirely resolved the traffic issues in the area does not mean it was fault for the Council to implement it and achieve a reduction in them.
10. Officers gathered and assessed relevant information and decided to proceed with the scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X may disagree with the Council’s decision to install the lines. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there was fault by the Council here, we will not investigate. We note Mrs X says she and other residents have lost three parking spaces. But some drivers may have been breaching the requirements of the Highway Code when using them. There is usable on-road parking close by which would not see drivers causing such contraventions. The addition of the yellow lines does not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice. Mrs X also claims the lines have directly caused additional congestion at school term‑time pick-up times. Even if we could say the lines have directly caused this issue, the level of impact on Mrs X at those periods is not sufficiently significant to give grounds for an investigation. The matters complained of do not cause Mrs X such significant personal injustices to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman