The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a controlled parking zone. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council within our jurisdiction has caused the complainant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, wrongly excluded him from consultations when it created a controlled parking zone (CPZ) near his home. He says the Council has subsequently wrongly issued penalty charge notices to him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
Background
To introduce a CPZ, the Council had to make a traffic regulation order (TRO)) in accordance with the Regulations. ( Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996) The Regulations set out procedures for consultation and dealing with objections to a proposal before a council makes a TRO.
In summary, to begin the formal process, a council must: publish a ‘notice of proposals’ in a local newspaper; make documents relating to the proposal available for public inspection; inform statutory consultees, including the police; and give other publicity to the proposal that the council considers is appropriate.
Once it created the CPZ, the Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures.
There is a right of appeal a penalty charge notice to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to the TPT is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to contest a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would generally apply.
Assessment I have seen nothing to suggest the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when creating the CPZ. It did not need to consult Mr B when doing so. The TRO allows the Council to issue permits to residents of the CPZ allowing them to park within it. Mr B does not live within the CPZ and is not entitled to a permit.
Although he does not have a resident’s permit, Mr B has parked within the CPZ. The Council has issued penalty charge notices to him which he has a right of appeal against. In the absence of payment or a successful appeal, the Council is entitled to take recovery action.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. He has or had a right of appeal against any penalty charge notice. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused him other injustice which we should pursue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman