Summary: Mr X complained there were flaws in the Council’s public consultation for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and the way it interpreted the results of this. Mr X said the Council’s decision-making was flawed as a result and this will negatively impact traffic in the area. We find the Council at fault for providing inaccurate information, but we find it has already taken suitable action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council consulted on its proposed CPZ. Mr X says the Council gave residents misleading information and created a bias towards its desired outcome. Specifically, Mr X says the Council:
• used old maps which do not reflect the area as it currently stands;
• worded the consultation in such a way that residents would not understand the importance of providing their response;
• misled residents about whether it would count multiple responses from each household;
• misinterpreted the voting percentages to favour the CPZ;
• failed to define what it classes as a “sub area”.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated the complaint points set out above, aside from:
• The Council used old maps which do not reflect the area as it currently stands;
• The Council worded the consultation in such a way that residents would not understand the importance of providing their response.
3. These aspects of the complaint would have been apparent to Mr X at the time the consultation was sent out in February 2021. Mr X did not bring his complaint to us until October 2022, more than 12 months later, so these complaints have been raised late. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have brought them to us sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Introducing a CPZ

9. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows Councils to introduce Traffic Management Orders (TMO) and CPZs.
10. The procedures for creating a TMO are in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
11. Councils will often carry out some consultation in the area before deciding to make a TMO. However, unless a council says otherwise, consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make a TMO is for the council.

The Council’s CPZ policy

12. The Council’s CPZ policy is published on its website. This sets out the factors the Council considers when deciding whether to have a CPZ in the borough.
13. The policy explains the Council carries out consultations in two stages.
14. At Stage 1, the Council carries out an informal public consultation. This allows residents and others affected to give their views so the Council can tailor its proposals to the local needs. The policy explains the Council considers the results on an area-wide basis but finalises the area it intends to consider for a CPZ once it has taken account of all responses.
15. The policy explains the Council will look to introduce a CPZ in areas, or sub-areas of the consulted area where at least 51% of respondents have voted in favour of it. It acknowledges this means some streets may vote against a CPZ but be included due to the votes of surrounding roads but where this is the case, the Council will make its rationale available to residents. It also explains there may be exceptional circumstances where the Council proceeds with the CPZ despite fewer than 51% of respondents being in favour. These decisions are for the Head of Operations in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and Ward Councillors.
16. Should the Council receive a response rate below 10% the consultation will be deemed inconclusive, and the scheme will not progress without further engagement that results in a response rate higher than 10%.
17. Stage 2 is the formal statutory consultation process where proposals are advertised in the local press and notices on lamp posts in the area. This period of consultation usually allows 21 days for people to comment on the proposed CPZ.

What happened

18. In February 2021 the Council wrote to residents saying it was consulting them about a possible new CPZ. The letter provided a weblink to more information about CPZs.
19. The letter invited responses by 17 March 2021 either online, or by returning a questionnaire. It explained officers would analyse the results and discuss the outcome with ward councillors. The Council would provide updates of the next steps with the results of the consultation, which would be published on its website. The letter also included a map highlighting the consultation area.
20. The letter invited responses from residents but did not impose limits of one response per household.
21. However, at this time the CPZ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the Council’s website explained it was seeking to analyse views from properties rather than individuals. It said the Council calculates response rates based on the number of valid questionnaires received and it may consider returned forms to be invalid if there were multiple responses per household.
22. In July 2022 the Council wrote to residents and businesses explaining over 23% of people in the area had responded with 52.9% of respondents not supporting the introduction of a full time CPZ.
23. It explained responses showed a sub-area of 19 roads had a majority that supported some form of CPZ, and most of those roads were in the east of the proposed area. Of those 19 roads 56% of respondents supported a CPZ.
24. The letter explained the majority of roads in the west of the proposed area were against a CPZ.
25. The letter explained the Council had decided to proceed with a statutory consultation to implement a CPZ across 19 roads only. It listed the roads and provided a link to the full public engagement on the Council’s website. It also explained it would consider any objections or representations received within 21 days of the statutory consultation beginning.
26. Mr X complained to the Council on 5 September. He said the Council’s decision to progress was flawed. Specifically, Mr X said:
• The information presented to the Head of Service for Highways and Parking was misleading. It did not properly highlight all roads that opposed the introduction of a CPZ, the voting percentages were not a fair reflection of the votes, the “N/A” votes were omitted from the figures for operational time preferences, and one road had been missed out of the results.
• The letter of July 2022 was misleading. It gave incorrect figures for how many roads supported parking controls, the attached map did not show all the consulted roads, and the voting percentages were incorrect.
• The Council gave a misleading impression of the overall support for a CPZ and should stop the consultation.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 20 September. It said:
• The area not shown on the consultation was private estate, where the Council could not enforce a CPZ. However, this area was included in the decision report to ensure all concerns and objections were represented.
• The “N/A” votes referred to people who opposed the CPZ and did not provide a preferred operational time.
• The decision report listed all road names for the proposed CPZ.
• There were some small errors in the reporting figures, but these had been corrected and did not change the overall outcome of the results as a majority still favoured the introduction of a CPZ. The updated figures would be issued when the Council next contacted residents as part of the statutory consultation.
• If Mr X remained unhappy, he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
28. The Council also agreed to remove the information from its website which suggested it would not consider multiple responses per household.
29. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2022. Mr X told us, in response to a Freedom of Information request, the Council confirmed it did consider multiple responses from different households.
30. In October 2022 the Council wrote to residents to explain the statutory consultation was beginning and how they could participate. The Council said it had received over 1,000 responses and 53.6% did not support the introduction of a full time CPZ.
31. However, it explained a sub-area to the east of the proposed area, containing 20 roads, had a majority in favour of a CPZ. It acknowledged not all roads responded in favour and listed the 20 roads included, this mirrored the 19 roads listed in the Council’s previous communication plus one other.
32. The Council explained, since its letter of July 2022, it had identified a small change in the figures previously reported and gave amended figures.
33. The Council now proposed a CPZ in the identified sub-area with the statutory consultation beginning on 19 October, providing a 21-day window for objections or submissions to the proposals. The Council explained the final date for submissions was 9 November and invited any questions. It explained it would consider all objections and submissions to decide whether to introduce parking controls and would write again with the outcome of this. The letter also contained a map highlighting the roads included in the plans.
34. In response to a draft of this decision, Mr X said:
• The Council did not correct the information until after the consultation, which means fewer people would have taken part as a result and the Council should re-run the process.
• That the Council considered multiple responses compounds the injustice as it gave extra weight to the votes of a small group who responded despite the information on the Council’s website.
• The Council needed a 50% support rate to proceed, but did not specify how this would applied to any portion of the surveyed area.
• Being able to define a sub-area as it sees fit allows the Council to create the illusion of majority support where it may not actually exist.

Analysis

Considering multiple responses per household

35. Mr X said the Council deliberately discouraged multiple responses, when these were in fact counted, which means the result is flawed and misinformed.
36. The consultation document the Council sent to residents in February 2021 invited responses from residents and businesses without restriction. This document did not discourage multiple responses and I do not find fault with the information the Council provided.
37. However, the Council’s website contained outdated information, which suggested it may not count multiple responses per household. This is inaccurate, which is fault. However, the Council did include multiple responses in its analysis and there was no personal injustice to Mr X.
38. The Council has now removed the erroneous information from its website and my view is this is a sufficient remedy to the injustice identified above.

Misinterpretation of voting percentages

39. When the Council wrote to residents in July 2022 with the results of its initial consultation, it misquoted voting percentage figures. This is fault and would have caused uncertainty.
40. However, the difference in figures was minor and did not alter the Council’s overall analysis of the responses. The Council corrected these figures when it wrote to residents in October 2022 to explain it had decided to start the statutory consultation. My view is this is a suitable remedy to the uncertainty caused.

Definition of sub areas

41. The Council’s CPZ policy explains it will look to introduce a CPZ in areas or sub-areas where at least 51% of respondents have voted in favour of it.
42. It is not possible for the Council to identify sub-areas any more specifically than this until it has received responses and analysed these. I do not find fault with the information the Council provided here.
43. When the Council wrote to residents in July 2022, it explained how it had considered the overall results of the consultation and how it had decided on the sub-area in which to implement a CPZ. The Council followed its published policy and I do not find fault with its decision-making process or the information it provided.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find the Council at fault for providing inaccurate information during the public consultation process. However, the Council has subsequently corrected that information and I find that is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman