The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to remove a parking bay. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to remove a parking bay opposite his home. Mr X wants the Council to remove the bay or, failing that, remove a lamp post or allow him to widen his dropped kerb.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also looked at images of Mr X’s drive and the parking bay. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Parking bays can only be created or removed through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). To create a TRO councils must follow a lengthy and expensive process.
There is a parking bay on the opposite side of the road to where Mr X lives, opposite his drive. Mr X asked the Council to remove the bay because he says it is hard to use his access and he is worried about hitting any car parked in the bay.
The Council considered but declined his request. The Council explained that removal would require a TRO and it has to prioritise requests that would be beneficial to the general public. It said it does not have the resources to agree to every request and an access issue in a minor road has low priority. The Council referred to its guidance for prioritising requests and explained that Mr X’s drive is protected by yellow lines on either side. The Council also explained there was a TRO in 2019 which led to changes to some of the parking bays in the road and included an assessment of all the driveways in the road. The Council said the road is wide enough for parking on one side of the road. The response was provided by a traffic engineer.
Mr X disagrees with the response. He says his drive is the only one opposite a bay and access is further hindered by a lamp post. Mr X wants the Council to remove the bay or remove the lamp post or widen his dropped kerb I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Councils are not required to agree to every request made by residents and it is not fault for a council to refuse a request. The Council considered Mr X’s request and explained why it will not agree. The reasons for the refusal are consistent with the policy on how the Council assesses requests and the request was assessed by a traffic engineer. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the response but we do not act as an appeal body and cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. I can only consider how the Council responded and there is no suggestion of fault in the way this was done.
Mr X has suggested, as alternatives, that the Council remove the lamp post or widen his dropped kerb. These are requests Mr X would need to present to the Council or he could make an application to widen his dropped kerb; it would be for the Council to decide whether to agree to any new request.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman