The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to impose parking restrictions in parts of its area. This is because Mr X had the right to appeal to the High Court and it is reasonable to have expected him to do so. There is also not enough evidence of fault in how the Council publicised its intention to impose parking restrictions.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council is incorrectly enforcing a Traffic Management Order by stopping motorhomes from parking in the same area as cars. This prevents Mr X from parking his motorhome in these areas, which he says is discrimination. Mr X wishes to be able to park his vehicle in the same areas as a car and for the Council to review the Order.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council that a Traffic Management Order (TMO) was preventing him from parking his campervan in bays marked for car parking. He said that his vehicle is the same class (B) as a car.
The vehicle class descriptions Mr X references refer to driving license definitions. The Council’s TMO used alternative legal definitions to distinguish between cars and motorhomes: ““Car” (same meaning as motor car in the 1988 Act and includes any part of a vehicle)” ““Motorhome” (has the same meaning as in Regulation 2(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) Regulations 1979)” The law allows the Council to restrict vehicles by class as defined in the Order Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 S2(1). Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council is enforcing the Order.
The Council published the final TMO on 25 March 2021. The TMO notice set out the right to challenge it in the High Court. If Mr X believed the Order was incorrect in law he had the opportunity to apply to the High Court within 6 weeks to challenge the order. It is reasonable to have expected him to do so.
The Council issued the TMO following local public consultation and published its notice of making as required by law. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in this process by the Council.
There was a delay in the Council issuing a final response to Mr X’s complaint and it offered an apology. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue and so we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. Additionally, the apology is a proportionate remedy for any injustice caused by the delay.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and he could have applied to the High Court to challenge the Order.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman