The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s implementation of parking restrictions on his road. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision. If Mr X wishes to challenge the restrictions it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consult about a proposal to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce parking restrictions along a section of his road. He complains the restrictions are unreasonable and excessive.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has now made the TRO and implemented the parking restrictions and we cannot decide their lawfulness. If Mr X believes the Council failed to follow the correct process and that this invalidates the TRO it would be reasonable for him to argue the matter at court. Mr X is clearly aware of the process for this and has threatened to challenge the TRO in his correspondence with the Council.
While we do have discretion to investigate this complaint I have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement in the matter and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X in any case. The process for making a TRO is not a referendum and even if there were minor technical issues in the process as Mr X claims it is unlikely we could say this affected the outcome. This is because the Council confirms several local residents supported the restrictions and that there were no objections from statutory consultees.
Mr X believes the double yellow lines should be shorter but the extent of the restrictions was for the Council to decide. The Council, through Mr X’s local councillor, has explained the rationale behind its decision and it is not for us to question this.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decision. If Mr X wishes to challenge the TRO it would be reasonable for him to do so at court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman