The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s introduction of a resident permit scheme covering his road and the issue of penalty charge notices for parking without a permit. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. If Mr B wished to challenge the penalty charge notices it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council adopted his road which includes land outside his garage, and introduced a resident permit scheme covering it. He says he only became aware of this when he and other residents started to receive penalty charge notices (PCNs). He would like the Council to allow residents to park in front of their garages without having to buy a permit.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has 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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s complaint response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council adopted Mr B’s road including land outside his garage as public highway more than 10 years ago. It later introduced parking restrictions, whereby only residents can park in the area, for which motorists need a permit. The Council introduced the parking restrictions through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which required consultation with local residents.
The TRO is a legal document and we cannot overturn it. Consultation for the introduction of a TRO is not a referendum, so while residents might have objected to it, the final decision on a TRO is for the Council as highways authority to decide. It is clear Mr B either did not know about the consultation at the time or did not appreciate the TRO would apply to the land outside his garage. But it is unlikely we could say this was due to any fault by the Council or that, had he known about it and objected, the Council would have changed the TRO to exclude the land outside his garage.
Mr B has had the benefit of not having to directly contribute to the cost of maintaining the road since the Council adopted it, and not having to get a permit for several years since the permit scheme was introduced. He may continue to park in front of his garage as he wishes, but just has to pay for a permit to do so. He also mentions there have been instances of other motorists parking their cars in front of the driveways, which the Council could now enforce against.
I appreciate Mr B was taken by surprise by the PCNs he received from the Council but they carried a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for him to use.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman