The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of parking restrictions near Ms X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to introduce parking restrictions near her home. She says the restrictions were approved without considering the effect on her amenity and despite her objections to part of the proposals.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X lives in a small hamlet which has limited parking and she has no off-street parking at her home. Following requests raised by other residents and the parish council concerning traffic congestion in the village, the Council visited the site and proposed to introduce parking restrictions in the form of double yellow lines.
Ms X objected to this and told the Council she believes the congestion is not caused by parking and she will be inconvenienced without the cause of the congestion being addressed. She asked the Council to meet her on site as it had initially with others. but it failed to do so.
The Council consulted residents about the proposed restrictions and Ms X submitted her views together with a submission by her MP which was made on her behalf. She expected the Council to contact her to discuss her views, but it did not. The Council as highway authority sets a date for comments on the proposals to be submitted. It does not engage in dialogue with individuals during this time.
The Council recommended that the parking restrictions be implemented. Normally the matter would be subject to approval by a committee, but in this case face to face meetings had ben suspended by the Council due to COVID-19 social distancing restrictions. Instead, the Director of Highways asked the Leader of the Council to confirm the decision. The Council’s Constitution allows for the leader to substitute the decision of a committee where this cannot be arranged.
Ms X believes that the Traffic order was not so urgent that it could not have been deferred until normal Council procedures were in place. The Council says that there was already a backlog of Orders and that it was reasonable to progress them.
When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body and question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
In this case there is no evidence that the proper highway procedures were not followed. It is not our role to question the highways officers’ judgement about the suitability of the restrictions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the introduction of parking restrictions near Ms X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman