Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council introduced a controlled parking zone. The Ombudsman has not found fault with how the Council implemented the controlled parking zone but has found fault with its handling of Mr B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B for not making a reasonable adjustment and to provide training to its staff on their duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about:
• how the Council introduced a controlled parking zone;
• information the Council shared with police; and
• the Council’s refusal to make reasonable adjustments and accept a stage 3 complaint by phone.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines;
• the Council’s policies and procedures; and
• the Council and Mr B’s comments on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Councils must follow the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to introduce a controlled parking zone (CPZ). This includes the following:
• Regulation 6: Where a traffic order is proposed, the council must consult statutory agencies, the emergency services, transport providers/ operators and other local organisations.
• Regulation 7: The council must publish a ‘notice of proposals’ describing the proposed order.
• Regulation 8: Any person may object to the making of an order within 21 days of the publication of a proposal.
• Regulation 13: Before making an order, the council must consider—
1. all objections made under regulation 8 and not withdrawn; and
2. if a public inquiry was held, the inspector’s report and any recommendations he made.
• Regulation 16: The council may make its order at any time between the end of the period set for receipt of objections and a date two years after the first notice.
• Regulation 17: Before the order takes effect, the council must publish a 'notice of making' in a local newspaper and write to anyone who raised objections to the CPZ.
• Regulation 18: Where an order relating to a road has been made, the council must take necessary steps to:
1. tell road users about the effect of the order; and
2. maintain signs for as long as the order remains in force.
6. The Council has a 3-stage corporate complaint procedure. Stage 1 is dealt with by the service head, stage 2 by the director of the service and stage 3 by the chief executive. The Council aims to reply within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 and 3.
7. The Equality Act 2010 says changes or adjustments should be made to enable people to receive the same services as others, to ensure they are not disadvantaged. The duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people is ‘anticipatory’. This means councils must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
8. The Data Protection Act 2018 says personal data can only be shared when the data subject has given consent. However, there are exemptions including when information sharing is necessary for:
• protecting an individual from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, or
• protecting the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual.
9. The Council has a policy on dealing with ‘unreasonably persistent’ complainants and ‘unreasonable complainant behaviour’.

What happened

10. This summary includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.

Controlled Parking Zone

11. Mr B lives on road C.
12. The Council carried out parking surveys and found a core area of parking pressure. To address the parking pressure, the Council considered introducing a CPZ. The Council consulted residents about having a CPZ in a core area which included road C, and an outer area.
13. The Council consulted residents about a proposed CPZ. The first consultation took place from February 2017 to March 2017 for six weeks. The Council’s leaflet showed the proposed CPZ, explained the possible outcomes of the CPZ and told residents how to comment on the proposal.
14. Following the consultation, the Council decided it would implement a CPZ in the core area. The Council decided that although most respondents were also in favour of a CPZ in the outer area, the results were not conclusive because of a low response rate.
15. In October 2017, the Council consulted the residents about introducing a CPZ in the outer area. The consultation lasted for three weeks. The Council updated residents on its plan to introduce a CPZ in the core area and the impact this could have on the outer area. The Council explained how residents could respond to its consultation.
16. The results of the Council’s consultation showed over 50% of residents supported a CPZ in the core and outer area. The Council started the procedure to implement the CPZ following the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. It carried out the following
• The Council consulted statutory agencies, the emergency services, transport providers/ operators and other local organisations about the proposed CPZ.
• In February 2018 the Council published a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper. The notice included a description of the CPZ, how to object and the timescale for objections. The Council sent the notice to residents in the proposed CPZ.
• Local residents raised general objections about the CPZ and these were resolved by the Council. The Council did not receive any objections from residents living on road C, or about road C.
• The Council made the order after the end of the period set for receipt of objections and within two years of the first notice
• In March 2018, the Council published a ‘notice of making’ in a local newspaper about introducing a CPZ in road C. The Council also sent residents affected a ‘works notification’ and information about how to buy a parking permit.
• The Council put up public notices on roads affected by the CPZ, including road C.

Complaint procedure

17. Mr B made a complaint about the CPZ in March 2018.
18. Comments made by Mr B in his March 2018 complaint raised concerns that he was a danger to himself, Council employees and Council property. The Council alerted those working on the CPZ, the community safety team and the police.
19. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint in April 2018 and explained it had consulted residents and the majority were in favour of a CPZ. The Council’s response was delayed due to concerns about Mr B’s welfare.
20. Mr B asked the council to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The Council responded in May 2018. It said it was satisfied with its stage 1 response and had acted in line with its processes and responsibilities. The Council explained it shared information with the community safety team and the police because of concerns about his welfare.
21. In July 2018, Mr B asked to meet with the Council to discuss his concerns. The Council invited Mr B to meet with a Head of Service. Mr B declined. He said he could not meet with the Council because of a lack of parking near its offices and not being able to afford transport costs. Mr B also said he wanted to meet a Director rather than a Head of Service.
22. In July 2018, Mr B asked the Council for its stage 3 complaint response. The Council told Mr B it had not received a stage 3 complaint and told him how to make one. The Council offered to meet Mr B at his house to discuss his complaint.
23. In February 2019, the Ombudsman asked the Council to accept a stage 3 complaint from Mr B verbally. The Ombudsman explained Mr B said he has severe dyslexia and cannot write letters. The Council said it would not take a verbal complaint. The Council did not accept Mr B could not make a complaint in writing because it had received written correspondence from him previously. It said it did not believe a telephone conversation would resolve matters because Mr B would not engage in ‘constructive dialogue’. The Council said it would accept a written stage 3 complaint from Mr B.

Analysis

24. The Council followed the correct procedure to introduce a CPZ as laid out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
25. The Council adhered to its complaint procedure at stage 1 and stage 2. The reason for the Council delay at stage 1 was the result of a safeguarding concern and was therefore justified.
26. The Council shared Mr B’s information without his consent during the complaint procedure. This information was about a safeguarding concern and the Council acted appropriately. Councils can share information without an individual’s consent if it has concerns about an individual’s well-being. This is in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.
27. Mr B is unhappy with how the Council described him when it contacted the police to raise concerns about his well-being. There is no evidence that the Council used inappropriate language to describe Mr B.
28. The Council refused to accept a verbal stage 3 complaint from Mr B, a request made by Mr B because he has dyslexia. The Council said this was because of Mr B’s behaviour and because it had previously received written complaints from him. If the Council was concerned about Mr B’s behaviour, it should have followed its policy on dealing with ‘unreasonably persistent’ complainants and ‘unreasonable complainant behaviour’. The Council did not use this policy and therefore it should have made a reasonable adjustment and accepted Mr B’s stage 3 complaint verbally; not doing so was fault.

Agreed action

29. The Council will:
• Apologise to Mr B for not accepting his stage 3 complaint verbally within one month of the final decision.
• Provide training to the complaints team on their duties under the Equality Act 2010 within two months of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. Mr B has been caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman