Overview
The complainant raised a number of concerns over the handling of his complaint about access protection markings and the consultation process for the extension of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Edinburgh.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the Council responses were deliberately unclear and evasive (not upheld);
- (b) the Council's letters regarding access protection markings were contradictory (not upheld);
- (c) the Council deliberately ignored information Mr C had given about his ability to contact them, to make it difficult for him to contact them (not upheld);
- (d) the Council did not respond to his letters in an acceptable time (upheld);
- (e) the Council did not keep residents informed of the process by letter (not upheld);
- (f) objections to the proposals for the CPZ were not responded to individually (not upheld);
- (g) copies of the Report of the Public Hearing into the CPZ were not automatically sent to objectors or residents (not upheld);
- (h) the Council did not inform residents of changes to parking regulations in their area at the outset but only in phases as the work went on (not upheld);
- (i) the Council's informing of the public via a website was unacceptable (not upheld); and
- (j) no reference to Mr C's objections was made in the enquiry report (not upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his letters and review their processes for acknowledging and responding to correspondence.
The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.