Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to introduce additional signage or parking restrictions on a road where Mr X says access to driveways is unsafe due to parked vehicles. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing to introduce warning signs about driveway exists or parking restrictions on the road where he lives. He says parking by non-residents has increased hazards to vehicles exiting driveways due to limited visibility.

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 response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says increased parking on the road where he lives has caused leaving driveways for him and other residents to be unsafe due to obscured visibility by the parked cars. He asked the Council to consider installing warning signs to drivers about exiting vehicles or to introduce parking restrictions which would remove commuter parking in the area.
6. The Council told Mr X that there is no specific signage to warn drivers of exiting vehicles under the range of signs it can install under the Traffic Signs Regulations and general Directions 2016 provisions. Drivers are expected to use due care and attention when they are driving in areas with exiting traffic and similar caution is required from drivers exiting into the carriageway.
7. The Council as highway authority can decide what signs and infrastructure should be placed in the highway. It says that Mr X’s locality is no different to many other roads in the area with private driveways accessing the public highway. Any introduction of parking restrictions would reduce on-street parking for visitors and also would require a legal traffic order to be approved.
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. In this case any additional signs would be provided at the discretion of the highway authority. There is no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to introduce additional signage or parking restrictions on a road where Mr X says access to driveways is unsafe due to parked vehicles. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman