Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to introduce parking restrictions on roads near his home. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council introduced parking restrictions, but there was fault in the way it dealt with Mr D’s correspondence. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to him to acknowledge the time and trouble he has been put to.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council has failed to introduce parking restrictions on roads near his home. He says one of the roads is narrow and the other has a school and no pavements. Mr D says the lack of restrictions makes them dangerous.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the Act")
• The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ("the Regulations")
5. I sent Mr D and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

6. Councils must make a traffic management order (TMO) to introduce and enforce parking restrictions. The Regulations set out the process. They require councils to consult with various bodies and publish a notice in a local newspaper. Councils must also “take such other steps as it may consider appropriate” to ensure adequate publicity. This may include directly notifying people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement.
7. Councils must consider any objections it receives to the notice. To make the order, a council must publish a “notice of making” in a local newspaper.

What happened

8. In 2015 Mr D wrote to the Council setting out his concerns about:
• parking on a narrow part of Road 1 (at the end of his street), and
• a lack of road markings designating right of way on Junction 1, which is close to his home.
9. In July 2015 the Council said it would add his requests to its work programme and process them when resources allowed. During 2016 Mr D contacted a local councillor four times about the matter, but I have seen no evidence of a substantive response.
10. In 2017 the Council put double yellow lines on part of Road 1, but not on a section at the end of Mr D’s street. Mr D wrote to the Council in June 2017 about this. He also asked about the markings at Junction 1. He attended a local forum and chased the Council for a response in September 2017. It replied that it had lost his June 2017 letter and would reply as soon as possible.
11. In June 2018 Mr D complained to the Council he had still not had a response. The Council replied that it could not locate the previous correspondence and asked Mr D to re-send it. It said it would extend the yellow lines on Road 1 but would leave space for two vehicles to park. It said it had now re-marked the carriageway edge and extended the centre line at Junction 1.
12. Mr D complained to the Ombudsman, but it was too soon for us to consider as he had not yet completed the Council’s complaints procedure.
13. The Council sent a stage 1 response to Mr D's complaint on 14 August 2018. It apologised that it had lost his correspondence and failed to reply to him. The Council said it had now advertised its intent to extend the double yellow lines on Road 1. If there were no objections, parking restrictions should be in place within the next eight weeks (i.e. by the end of October 2018). The letter said if Mr D remained dissatisfied he could ask for the complaint to be considered at Stage 2 by a senior manager.
14. The Council published a “notice of making” on 22 August 2018, which made a TMO to extend the double yellow lines by 11.5m. It left a gap of 11m to allow two cars to park at the end of Mr D’s road. The order came into effect on 27 August 2018. In September 2018 Mr D told the Council he looked forward to the rest of the double yellow lines being completed. He received no response and chased the Council in December.
15. The Council wrote to Mr D on 2 January 2019. It had lost Mr D’s September 2018 letter, but said it had extended the yellow lines by 11.5m and the work was now completed.
16. Mr D complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council had failed to act even though it had upheld his complaint. He wanted the Council to put yellow lines on the whole stretch of Road 1, as it was dangerous to exit his street if cars were parked on Road 1.
17. Mr D said he had been to two local forums to raise the matter, but nothing had happened. The Council had not been to look at the road, had delayed in dealing with the matter and had failed to reply to him.
18. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had considered Mr D’s request for a further extension of the double yellow lines on Road 1 but did not consider this was necessary. It offered to meet Mr D to explain its position.

My findings

19. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether there should be parking restrictions on Road 1. My role is to consider how the Council made its decision.
20. I have reviewed the August 2018 TMO and have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was made.
21. However, there was some confusion about what works the Council had planned to do. It explained to Mr D in June 2018 that it would leave a gap for cars to park. When it wrote to Mr D again in August 2018 it said it would extend the yellow lines. Mr D understood this to mean to remove the gap, but it did not.
22. Mr D could have objected to the notice of intent to extend the double yellow lines when it was published, but I have seen no evidence the Council told Mr D when or where this would be. However, councils are not required to inform residents of publication of TMO notices, so I cannot say this was fault. In addition, I cannot say that the Council would have changed its plans if it had received Mr D’s objection and given it now says it considers further yellow lines to be unnecessary, this is unlikely. I welcome the Council’s offer to meet Mr D; it would be helpful for this to be at the site to discuss his request.
23. The Council has apologised for its delays in replying to Mr D, but I do not consider that is sufficient to remedy the time and trouble Mr D was put to. It lost his correspondence three times and did not reply to him for a year. This meant Mr D had to chase the Council and complain to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed actions

24. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and pay him £200 to acknowledge the time and trouble he has been put to.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr D’s correspondence, causing him time and trouble. There was no fault in the way the Council installed parking restrictions.
26. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman