Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to introduce highway measures to prevent inconsiderate parking in Mr X’s street. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent visitors to a business from causing access problems for residents in his street. He says that he requested increased parking enforcement and CCTV but the latter has not been provided. He says he suggested highway restrictions to the Council and some may have been considered but there is no funding to introduce them at present. He wants the measures to be funded.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says since a business opened in his street in 2024 there have been problems with clients parking inconsiderately and blocking or restricting access/egress for residents. He asked the Council to increase parking enforcement to deter this activity. The Council says it increased enforcement at the site and that parking penalties have resulted from this. It told Mr X that penalties can only be issued by witnessing officers on site and that CCTV is not a valid means of issuing penalty charge notices under the Traffic Management Act 2004.
6. The Council has limited resources which must be spent on enforcement throughout the authority area of Cornwall so there is a limit to how much will be diverted to one site. It would be unreasonable for one highway issue to use a disproportionate amount of the available resource at the expense of others.
7. The Council says it has considered Mr X’s submissions for parking restrictions and highway improvements. The system which the Council uses to introduce any highway changes is by means of a panel of representatives made up of local councillors and parish or town councils. New highway restrictions or amendments are legal decisions and can only be introduced by way of a Traffic Management Order (TRO) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The highway authority, which is the Council in this case, must follow the guidance and regulations set out in the legislation.
8. The Council has advised Mr X to seek support for the proposals through his local elected member who is a representative on the Panel. If a proposal for changes is accepted by the Panel this results in it being added to a list of TROs to be carried out in future when funding allows. Approval for a TRO is a discretionary process and there is no duty on a highway authority to accept a proposal for addition to the list.
9. Because TRO’s are lengthy and expensive legal procedures most highway authorities only have resources to process a limited number each year according to their budgets.
10. 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.
11. In this case there is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council because it has considered Mr X’s requests and explained the procedure for how additional measures might be introduced.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to introduce highway measures to prevent inconsiderate parking in Mr X’s street. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman