The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the consultation process the Council carried out which resulted in parking restrictions on the road outside his property. The Council published incorrect and misleading maps of proposals which gave the impression Mr X was not affected, and so he did not comment. It also delayed handling his complaint on the matter. However, the Council considered similar concerns to those of Mr X in deciding to implement the restrictions. Therefore, the fault did not affect the overall outcome. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to recognise the frustration the faults caused him.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the consultation process carried out by the Council which resulted in parking restrictions on his road. Mr X said the Council failed to provide him and other residents with accurate information about the proposals.
Mr X wants the Council to review the restrictions and allow him and other residents to provide proper feedback. He says the parking restrictions have made parking on his road worse which is causing him frustration and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of the complaint and information he provided.
I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.
What I found
To introduce parking restrictions in the Greater London area, councils must make a traffic management order (TMO). The process for doing this is set out in regulations. The Regulations set out the procedure for consultation and how a council must deal with any objections before it introduces a TMO. Consultation is not a referendum. The decision to make a TMO ultimately lies with the council'.
What happened In 2018 the Council announced a new parking strategy to offer residents various solutions for meeting street parking needs across the area. Stage one of the strategy focussed on various areas and asked residents to complete a questionnaire to help it understand parking concerns so it could consider potential solutions.
At the end of 2018 the Council began stage two of the strategy which was informal consultation. The Council sent a leaflet to all residents who may be affected by proposals, including Mr X. The leaflet said stage 2 was asking residents to confirm whether or not they supported proposed changes for their street. The leaflet provided residents with a web link where they could view their street and see what the Council proposed.
Mr X lives at the end of a road on the junction of a main road. Mr X said he viewed the parking strategy website and the map of his street. This showed the Council had split its proposals into three geographical areas (GA1, GA2 and GA3). The map showed GA1 covered most of Mr X’s road, but his house and the last section of his road was covered by GA2. Mr X said that while the Council proposed double yellow lines and parking restrictions on his road Mr X considered the end of his road was outside the scope of GA1. Mr X said he had no concerns with the proposals set out within GA1 and so he decided he did not need to take part in the consultation.
Towards the end of 2019 the Council began stage three of the strategy which was the statutory consultation and formal TMO process. The Council sent another leaflet to residents in all areas affected by the proposals including Mr X and the other residents on his road. The leaflet outlined the proposals under the TMO for GA1. This included the introduction of yellow lines at various locations. The leaflet included a map showing the areas affected which included all of Mr X’s road. The TMO stated double yellow lines were proposed along the whole length of Mr X’s road all the way to the main road.
The leaflet directed residents to the Council’s website for a more detailed view of the proposals and provided detailed of how residents could comment on the TMO proposals and the deadline for doing so which was the end of November 2019.
Mr X said he checked the Council’s website for a more detailed view which showed the same map as stage two of the process. He said it still showed his house and the end of his road fell outside the boundary of GA1 and he therefore presumed he was unaffected by the proposals.
During the three stages of consultation records show the Council received various comments from residents on Mr X’s road. The Council said it received comments from 15% of residents on Mr X’s road although only 3 residents commented at stage three. These included specific comments of both support and objection around parking restrictions at the end of Mr X’s road and outside his property.
The Council also published a report outlining the result of the consultation. This said it received over 9,000 comments altogether with wide ranging feedback and no single overriding theme of comment.
In March 2021 Mr X contacted his local councillor after discovering double yellow lines at the end of his road outside his property. Mr X said the yellow lines would have a significant impact on his life because they take away 10 parking spaces. Mr X said he was frustrated he was not consulted on them and said after checking the consultation information again, that section of his road was still marked as GA2. The councillor said they would ask the Council to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
The Council responded to Mr X at stage 1 of the complaints’ procedure in October 2021. It outlined the TMO requirements and consultation steps it took. It said Mr X’s property was included in the list of properties that it wrote to at all stages of the GA1 consultation, including the statutory consultation. It said Mr X did not provide a response at any stage of the consultation. The Council said it intended to carry out a review of the double yellow lines and reintroduce parking spaces where it was safe and practicable to do so.
Mr X responded to the Council and said his complaint did not question that the Council followed the statutory TMO process. He said the information online about the proposals was misleading given his property showed as being in GA2, not GA1. Mr X also questioned the low response rate and lack of general support for the proposals. Mr X said the introduction of double yellow lines was not justified.
The Council agreed to escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints’ procedure in October 2021 and said it would provide a full response within 20 working days.
The Council did not provide Mr X with its stage 2 complaint response until June 2022. It accepted the stage three leaflet should have been more explicit around ensuring residents reviewed how their road was affected. It also accepted the plans showed Mr X’s immediate area as being in GA2 rather than GA1. It said however the statutory documents made it clear that ALL residents were affected and the TMO included the proposals outside Mr X’s property. The Council said it considered consultation responses on an area wide basis including responses which identified the area outside Mr X’s house as being a concern.
Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to us.
In response to my enquiry letter the Council said the stage three leaflet included a map showing the full length of Mr X’s road. It said its review of the double yellow lines was impacted by COVID-19 however it confirmed it will commence the review on Mr X’s road in February/March 2023.
My findings
Mr X’s complaint is not about the TMO process but about inaccurate information and misleading information on its website.
All three stages of the Council’s consultation directed residents to its website for a more detailed look. The map as shown on the website clearly showed Mr X’s property and the end of Mr X’s road fell outside of GA1. The Council has accepted in its complaint response to Mr X that the online plans were not accurate which is fault. It led Mr X to believe he was not directly affected by the Council’s proposals and so he did not need to submit comments. This caused him frustration.
However, the records I have seen show the Council did receive comments from residents on Mr X’s road and some of these comments were objections to the proposal of double yellow lines at the end of Mr X’s road and outside his property. Therefore, on balance, I cannot say the outcome would have been any different if the online plans been accurate and if Mr X had the opportunity to submit his objections.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how much a complainant disagrees with the decision. Consultation is not a referendum and is not binding. Local objection is not a veto to proposals. The records show the Council received various comments which it considered. It was for the Council to decide how to use the results and it decided to implement restrictions on Mr X’s road, including outside his property.
The Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint was poor. It agreed to escalate his complaint to stage two in October 2021 but did not provide a final response until June 2022. That delay was fault and caused Mr X frustration.
One of Mr X’s desired outcomes for this matter was for the Council to review the necessity of the double yellow lines. It has confirmed it intends to do this for Mr X’s road in February/March 2023 and it is open to Mr X to contact the Council for an update on the review at that time.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to write to Mr X and apologise and pay him £200 to acknowledge the frustration caused by its failure to publish accurate maps on its website of proposed parking restrictions and for the delay in responding to his complaint.
The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I completed this investigation. I found some fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by that fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman