The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to safety concerns he raised about local parking issues. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to safety concerns he raised relating to parking issues in his local area. Mr X says the issues have been ongoing for the past 30 years.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about an officer’s response to safety concerns he raised relating to longstanding parking issues in his local area. He asked for double yellow lines to be installed on the road affected. Mr X said the officer dismissed his concerns and suggested he raise them to his parish council.
The Council found no sign of fault in the officer’s response to Mr X’s concerns. The officer explained to Mr X that it could not consider requests from individuals for the installation of double yellow lines. She explained the process is completed via a traffic regulation order (TRO) and that he should in the first instance contact his local county councillor or parish council to see whether there is local support for his request for restrictions as it would displace existing parking for residents. The TRO procedure involves a consultation process allowing for both support and objections and if there were many objections the proposal would not be taken forward. The Council provided Mr X with a link to information about the statutory procedure for creating a TRO.
Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint. He says it has not been fairly dealt with.
Mr X says the issues he raised have been ongoing for the past 30 years. I have not considered that as part of this complaint. This is because the law says a complaint should be made to us within 12 months of the person affected first becoming aware of the matter. Mr X has been aware of the matter for 30 years and so he could have been reasonably expected to have raised this matter much sooner. However, as it is an ongoing matter, I have considered the Council’s response to his concerns and complaint as they are events within the past 12 months.
Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s response to his concerns there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council has considered Mr X’s concerns and has set out the available options open to him to pursue his request for double yellow lines further. Whilst Mr X disagrees with the outcome I can see no sign of fault in the way the Council has responded to him on this matter as it has done so in line with the statutory procedure for creating a TRO which is the process carried out in order for yellow lines to be installed. It has clearly explained this process to Mr X.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman