The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council introducing double yellow lines near the complainant’s house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to introduce the lines, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use, or have used, the alternative remedies available to him.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council introduced double yellow lines close to his home without properly consulting residents. This has resulted in him receiving four penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking on the lines, and damage to his vehicle when he parked on another road behind his house.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has, or had, a right of appeal, reference, or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
Similarly, 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 Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted the Traffic Regulation Order process, which enabled the double yellow lines to be introduced, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation. In particular, there is no statutory requirement to write to people in the local area. Nonetheless, the Council did, on this occasion, post letters to the properties whose boundaries ran immediately parallel to the proposed lines. The Council also erected notices in the area and the proposal was advertised in the local press. As an objection was received, the scheme was considered and approved by the Planning and Regulatory Committee.
And if Mr X wanted to dispute the PCNs he has received, the Ombudsman would normally expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I see no reasons why Mr X was prevented from doing this, so, with reference to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, we will not investigate any parts of the complaint about the PCNs themselves.
Finally, if Mr X believes the Council is liable for damage to his vehicle then, with reference to paragraph 6 above, the Ombudsman would normally expect him to pursue a court remedy; either directly or through the relevant insurers. We will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint either.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to introduce the lines, and it is reasonable to expect him to use, or have used, the alternative remedies available to him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman