Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a permit parking scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council introducing a resident’s permit parking scheme in a nearby road. He says the views of residents in the area were largely ignored and that consultation which was carried out was flawed.

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))

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council carried out consultation since 2022 about a permit scheme for residents’ parking which the majority of residents the in the area were not in favour of. He says the consultation with residents was flawed and favoured the residents who had asked for the scheme initially despite concerns of parking being displaced into adjacent areas.
7. The initial traffic regulation order proposed for 2022 raised public objection and a petition from residents to the highway authority. No complaint was received by us about this scheme within 12 months of its proposal. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wish to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
8. The Council subsequently abandoned the permit scheme for this traffic order and instead initiated an experimental traffic order for a scheme involving only the road which had requested it. Experimental orders do not require public consultation but are used to gauge the level of approval and possible amendment during the timescale in which they operate. The Council reviewed the scheme at the end of the timescale and decided to implement a permanent order.
9. Anyone who wishes to challenge the validity of an order once it is made can appeal to the High Court within 6 weeks of the making of the order.
10. The schemes proposed by the Council caused a certain amount of public response when they were proposed and this is not unusual for a parking zones being introduced which are often unpopular with residents. However, the Council as highway authority has the final decision in traffic orders under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s introduction of a permit parking scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman