Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce weekend parking restrictions in an existing Controlled Parking Zone. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, represents a church in the Council’s area. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to introduce weekend parking restrictions close to the church. The Council introduced the restrictions by extending the operational hours of an existing Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Mrs X says the Council did not give the church the opportunity to comment on the proposals. She says the Council wrongly attributed a comment in support of the proposals to the church. Mrs X says the parking restrictions will impact on the church’s ability to serve the community. Mrs X says that parking further away is not an option for elderly church goers and there are insufficient pay and display bays close by.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Road Traffic Regulation Act covers the introduction and amendment of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ).
6. Councils can carry out informal consultation in an area before deciding whether to go through the formal process of making a Traffic Management Order (TMO) to create or amend a CPZ. However, consultation is not a binding referendum. It is for councils to decide how to use the results of consultation.
7. Formal consultation on making a TMO is with statutory organisations, through publication of a public notice, and by taking other steps the council considers appropriate. This can involve notifying people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a legal requirement. Councils must consider any response to formal consultation before making an order and bringing it into force.

What happened

8. Mrs X complained to the Council in July 2021 about its decision to amend the operational hours of a CPZ close to a church she represents. The changes meant the CPZ would be in force between 8am and 8pm at weekends. Mrs X’s complaint to the Council included:
• The change had been introduced without consulting the church. Mrs X said the church had not received any communications about the proposals.
• The new parking restrictions would have an impact on the church and local community.
• The Council had wrongly attributed a response to the consultation as being from the church.
• There was a lack of suitable alternative parking nearby and the cost of parking would be prohibitive for some church goers.
9. In its responses to Mrs X the Council said:
• It wrote to the church and other affected properties about the informal and formal consultations.
• An informal consultation took place between 10 September and 09 October 2020. Sixty percent of respondents were in favour of the proposal. During this stage of the process consideration was given to the number of responses received. Each property could submit a single response. An objection from the church would not have changed the fact most respondents were in support of the proposal.
• A response in support of the proposal referred to the church. But the Council did not treat it as a response from a representative of the church.
• The statutory consultation took place between 02 February and 05 March 2021.
• During the statutory consultation period the Council displayed notices on lampposts throughout the affected zone. Information was published in local newspapers and on the Council’s website.
• There are many other faith related establishments within CPZs and the Council is not aware of any detrimental impact on their services or the local community.

Assessment

10. Based on the information I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. This is because:
• The Council followed the correct process for introducing or amending a CPZ in its area. There was an informal consultation followed by a formal consultation. The results of these consultations informed the decision to amend the parking restrictions.
• Mrs X says the Council did not send the church any of the consultation documents - the Council disagrees with this. It is difficult to see how we could reach a safe conclusion about whether the Council did write to the church. If it did, and the letters were not delivered, we could not hold the Council responsible.
• Even if we could establish the Council did not write to the church, it is not a legal requirement for councils to write to people it thinks might be affected by a TMO. More importantly, and as the Council has explained to Mrs X, even if the church had responded to the informal consultation, it would not have made a difference. This is because most respondents were in favour of the proposal. A single response from the church would not have changed this.
• Mrs X says the Council wrongly attributed a response to the consultation to the church. There is no evidence this was a key factor in the Council’s decision.
• The reports following the informal and statutory consultation set out the process followed, the responses received, and the basis of the Council’s decision. This is what we would expect the reports to show.
• The report which approved the TMO following the statutory consultation referred to two main reasons for its approval; support from residents and issues with parking on days when events took place at a nearby stadium. A response from the church would not have affected the basis of the Council’s decision.
11. The Council has responded to Mrs X’s complaints and explained the process followed. It has explained the basis of its decision, considered Mrs X’s concerns, but has decided they do not affect the decision to amend the CPZ. Without evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision it is not one we can question. It is unlikely we could add anything to the responses Mrs X has received. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman