Summary: Ms X complained there was a fault in the Council’s public consultation process for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Ms X said the Council’s decision-making was flawed as a result, and this will result in parking costs and increased traffic in the area. We find the Council at fault for providing inaccurate information, but we find it has taken suitable action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there was a major procedural fault with the Council’s public engagement on its proposed CPZ. Specifically, Ms X says the council gave misleading information, which discouraged multiple responses per household. Ms X believes this would have affected the Council’s analysis of the responses and is likely to result in increased traffic in the area and parking costs.

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 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

4. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered information she provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
5. Ms 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

6. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows Councils to introduce Traffic Management Orders (TMO) and CPZs.
7. The procedures for creating a TMO are in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
8. 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

9. 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.
10. The policy explains the Council carries out consultations in two stages.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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%.
14. 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

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The letter did not impose limits of one response per household.
18. 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 went on to say 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.
19. In July 2022 the Council wrote to residents again, explaining it had analysed responses and identified a sub-area that had a majority in support of some form of CPZ.
20. The letter explained the Council had decided to proceed with a statutory consultation to implement a CPZ across that sub-area. It also explained it would consider any objections or representations received within 21 days of the statutory consultation beginning.
21. Ms X complained to the Council on 6 September. Ms X said the Council’s decision was flawed by incorrect and misleading communications.
22. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 16 September. It explained every property in the proposed area received a public engagement pack and a chance to respond.
23. The Council also agreed to remove the information from its website which suggested it would not consider multiple responses per household.
24. In response to a freedom of information request, the Council confirmed it did consider multiple responses from different households.
25. In October 2022 the Council wrote to residents to explain the statutory consultation was beginning and how they could participate.
26. It explained it had identified a sub-area that had a majority in favour of a CPZ. The Council now proposed a CPZ to operate in that area, and the statutory consultation would begin on 19 October, providing a 21-day window for people to object or provide submissions to the proposals. The Council explained the final date for submissions would be 9 November and invited any questions on this. It explained it would then consider all objections and submissions to decide whether to introduce parking controls and would write again with the outcome of this.
27. In response to a draft of this decision, Ms X said:
• The Council did not remove the erroneous information from its website until after the consultation which does not remedy the impact this may have had on the voting numbers.
• The Council calculated its 10% response rate using total number of responses against the number of properties in the area rather than against the number of eligible respondents.

Analysis

28. Ms X said the Council discouraged multiple responses per household, when it actually counted these, which calls its analysis of voting percentages into question.
29. The consultation document the Council sent to residents in February 2021 invited responses without restriction. This document did not discourage multiple responses and I do not find fault with the information the Council provided.
30. 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 consider multiple responses and so any injustice is minimal.
31. The Council has now removed the erroneous information from its website and this is a sufficient remedy to the injustice identified above.

Back to top

Final decision

32. 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