The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said when introducing a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in his area the Council failed to properly carry out consultation with the residents and failed to apply the right criteria. We do not find fault in the way the Council introduced CPZ.
The complaint
Mr X complains about introduction of CPZ in the area where he lives. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consult with the residents and failed to apply the right criteria when making its CPZ decision. Mr X claims the Council’s failures caused him financial loss, inconvenience and distress.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered all the information provided by Mr X and talked to him. I reviewed all the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
I reviewed London Borough of Barking & Dagenham “Implementation of Controlled Parking Zones – Residents’ Parking Policy” (Policy).
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal framework Councils can introduce controlled parking zones (CPZ) under a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The legislation for TROs is set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
The procedures for creating a TRO are outlined in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Regulations). Under these regulations when making a TRO councils must carry out the following process: Consultation - with various bodies such as transport operators or local emergency services; Publication of proposals by a notice in a local newspaper and “other such steps as it may consider appropriate” to ensure publicity. This may include directly telling people the council thinks may be affected, but this is not a requirement; Objections – 21 days from the publication of the proposal must be allowed for objections in writing from any person to be made; Consideration must be given by the Council to any objections received before it makes a decision; Making an order and bringing it into force; Action after making the order – a council must publish a “notice of making” in a local newspaper within 14 days; and Signs must be placed in the area before the order comes into force.
Key events In this chronology I only list facts which are relevant to Mr X’s complaint.
At the end of August 2020 the Council sent consultation letters to the residents identifying reasons for considering extending the current CPZ (UP CPZ) across this area: creating safer roads and pavements; reducing number of non-local vehicles that can park in this area; making parking more clearly defined and easier for residents; making areas around schools safer for local pupils; reducing traffic congestion; improving air quality.
The Council’s consultation letter contained details of the proposed CPZ operating times dependant on the closeness to the schools. It also communicated the Council’s intent to reduce traffic congestion which was expected to increase after the planned expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to inner London from October 2021.
When asking for the residents’ views on the plans of the UP CPZ extension, the Council suggested using the link to the online form. For the residents without internet access it provided a telephone number to the Council’s contact centre. In the letter the Council also included an email address.
Mr X said the Council sent consultation letters only to some of the residents. The ones who live in the middle and top floors of his block of flats never received the letters. At the time of the Council’s consultation with the residents Mr X witnessed the local church members delivering the Council’s mail which he queried.
The Council said it sent consultations letters telling of the proposal for extending the current UP CPZ to all residents of the affected areas. The correspondence was sent via Royal Mail. The Council claimed it received responses to the consultation letters from various addresses which would suggest majority of the letters reached their destination.
When criticising the Council’s consultation process, Mr X referred also to the limited ways of responding to the Council’s consultation letter caused by the national lockdown. He said the residents could only register their objections or support online, which disadvantaged a group of elderly or/and disabled residents who do not use computers. This situation, in Mr X’s view, undermined the results of the Council’s consultation.
The Council publicised details of its proposal to extend the UP CPZ on its website. The notices were also published in the London Gazette and the local press.
The Council set three weeks in September 2020 as a consultation period. It received overall over 530 responses, out of which majority were via online form or email, but there were also over 30 telephone responses. 18 residents living at Mr X’s road replied to the Council’s consultation. Out of all the residents living in the area under the consultation, 16% told the Council of their objections to the proposed CPZ. Out of all the responses 67% were against the plan and 33% responders supported it.
In mid-July 2021 the Director of Law and Governance, under delegated authority, issued a decision to extend the UP CPZ across the area including the road where Mr X lives. It provided for introducing two operating periods – longer for the areas near the schools and an hourly in the remaining areas.
When explaining reasons for its decision the Director referred to the Policy. Serious safety concerns raised by the London Fire Brigade about not being able to safely access the area due to parked vehicles were stated as the primary reason. The other considerations included: Three schools located within the zone; Parking restrictions already introduces around the schools increase risk of displaced parking; The area is surrounded by existing CPZs increasing risk of displaced and inconsiderate parking; Minimal amount of objections to the scheme compared with the number of properties consulted; Extension of ULEZ potentially affecting the areas nearby tube stations; Evidence of reported traffic accidents within the zone, including 3 serious accidents; New housing developments planned for the area which will bring extra parking pressures.
Findings on disputed facts Consultation letters To find out whether the Council sent its consultation letter to all residents from the areas which were to be affected by the extended CPZ, I reviewed all the evidence and in particular the Council’s consultation records.
The responses, both objections and supportive of the scheme, were provided from across the area and included 18 from Mr X’s road. On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely the Council would send its letters to the selected flats, omitting the ones in the middle or top floors. It is equally unlikely the postal service would selectively deliver mail just to the ground floor flats.
This leads to the conclusion that even if, for various reasons, the letters did not reach all the residents, the Council tried to tell everyone of its proposal.
Ways to respond to the consultation The Council’s consultation letter included various forms of possible contact to express residents’ views on the proposed CPZ. This included: online form, email or telephone contact.
The Council records of the residents’ responses show they were provided by various methods, including by phone. Thus the available evidence does not support Mr X’s claim the only available method of raising objections was by electronic communication, which would disadvantage those residents who do not have access to computers.
Analysis As explained in paragraph 2 when reviewing Mr X’s complaint I looked at the process of reaching the Council’s decision on extending the UP CPZ to the area including Mr X’s road, and not at the merits of the decision reached by the Council.
When disagreeing with the Council’s decision to make a TRO extending the UP CPZ across the area where he lives, Mr X complained about the Council’s failings at two stages of the process: Publication of the proposal – alleged failings with the consultation letters to the residents which affected their right to raise objections; Criteria the Council applied when making its decision.
Publication of the proposal One of the Council’s duties before introducing CPZ is to take such steps as it may consider proper for ensuring that satisfactory publicity about the order is given to anyone likely to be affected by its provisions. This wording of the need to publicise the proposal leaves to the Council’s discretion how it ensures the residents know about this proposal.
Before making decision to extend the UP CPZ to the area which included Mr X’s road, the Council: Sent consultation letters to the residents by Royal Mail; Published details of the proposal in the local press and the London Gazette; Published details of the proposal on its website.
Completing the actions listed above shows the Council took steps it considered proper to tell the residents of the area affected by the proposal of the Council’s plan to extend the UP CPZ. Even though not all the residents received the Council’s consultation letters, the actions the Council undertook satisfy the need provided for by the Regulations. There is no fault in how the Council publicised its proposal.
Having found out the Council properly publicised its proposal to extend the UP CPZ, it follows the residents could have contacted the Council either to raise their objections or to express support for the proposal. The Council’s record shows the residents from various parts of the area sent their responses and they were either sent electronically or communicated by phone.
The Regulations say before making a TRO the Council will consider all objections.
The Council recorded all the responses to its proposal, analysed and considered them before making a decision. Thus the Council followed the correct process and there is no fault.
Criteria the Council applied when making its decision Mr X claims when making its decision the Council applied general approach, failing to consider the particular features of the area where he lives such as distance from the schools and tube stations, lack of traffic accidents and lack of Fire Brigade interventions. Mr X believes if the Council had considered these circumstances, it should have excluded Mr X’s road and bordering area from CPZ.
The Council’s Policy specifies the key factors for consideration when introducing CPZ: Safety – when the London Fire Brigade, Metropolitan police, Transport for London or council departments have highlighted significant safety or access issues caused by parking in an area; Congestion – there is clear evidence of congestion in the area which has an impact on traffic flow and is affecting the lives of local citizens; Air Quality – there is evidence the level of air pollution due to emissions is excessive in an area and as such impact on air quality and the health of citizens.
The views of residents and locally elected councillors.
The Policy states there may be occasions when concerns related to parking restrictions are so severe, the case for setting up a scheme can be justified irrespective of the result of the consultation. This would include situations where there are serious safety concerns or severe congestion.
The Council’s decision, as recorded in July 2021, was based on the Policy criteria and there are no reasons to criticise it. The fact raised by Mr X there were no traffic accidents or Fire Brigade interventions in his area is irrelevant as ensuring access for emergency vehicles does not depend on the notoriety of the emergency services interventions.
Moreover, by introducing different operating periods for CPZ the Council showed it appreciated the areas in the vicinity of schools and tube stations should have stricter parking restrictions.
Conclusions
While Mr X disagrees with extending UP CPZ, the decision to make a TRO rests with the Council. As long as it followed the correct procedure to make its decision, we cannot question that decision. The Council correctly publicised the proposal, considered the objections received and when making its decision applied the criteria from its Policy.
Thus, I have found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process as it has followed the procedural steps outlined in the Regulations.
Final decision
For the reasons explained in the Analysis section, I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. I find no fault in the way the Council made a decision on extending the Controlled Parking Zone.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman