Recommendation not implemented: Ombudsman finds incorrect practice concerning vehicles blocking garage access

Recommendation not implemented: Ombudsman finds incorrect practice concerning vehicles blocking garage access

Published November 03, 2026

The Complaint

The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated a complaint concerning repeated obstruction of access to a garage in Triq l-Imsida, Santa Venera.

The complainant explained that vehicles belonging to customers of nearby commercial establishments, as well as other  residents in the area, were frequently left in front of his garage, preventing him from entering or leaving freely. On several occasions, he had to locate the drivers himself or wait for them to move their vehicles.

In an attempt to address the problem, the complainant placed a “Garage in Use 24/7” sticker and erected two signs indicating “Garage in Use 24/7”, “No Parking” and “Tow Zone Area”. In December 2025, a Transport Malta official instructed him to remove the signs because they were unauthorised. The complainant maintained that, although action had been taken against his signs, no effective solution had been provided to prevent vehicles from continuing to obstruct his garage.

Facts and Findings

During the investigation, the Office asked Transport Malta to explain its position regarding the unauthorised signs and to indicate whether any measure could be taken to address the recurring obstruction.

Transport Malta replied that, according to its understanding of the law, a vehicle could be parked in front of a garage provided that a visible telephone number was left so that the driver could be contacted if the vehicle needed to be moved. It also correctly pointed out that a person cannot independently place signs, markings or other objects on a public road without authorisation.

The Ombudsman examined the two issues separately.

On the placing of private signs, the Ombudsman found that the complainant had no authority to place signs or objects on the public road on his own initiative. Such measures must be authorised by the competent authority. Transport Malta was therefore correct in requiring the removal of the privately installed signs.

However, the Ombudsman found that this did not resolve the underlying problem. Good administration required the complainant to be given clear information about the applicable rules, who should be contacted when garage access is obstructed, and what authorised measures could be considered to address a recurring problem.

More significantly, the investigation found that Transport Malta’s position that a vehicle could park in front of a garage as long as a telephone number was displayed was inconsistent with Regulation 77(2) of the Motor Vehicles Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 65.11.

The regulation provides that no person may park or leave an unattended vehicle in a manner that prevents another vehicle from having free access to or from premises clearly marked and used as a garage. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that leaving a telephone number does not make it permissible to obstruct access to a garage that is in use.

The Ombudsman also criticised the lack of practical guidance provided by Transport Malta. Reference had merely been made to contacting the “competent authorities”, without explaining who those authorities were, what information should be provided, or what action could be taken. This effectively left the burden of resolving the situation on the person whose garage access was being obstructed.

The investigation further noted that Transport Malta itself has a process concerning Unimpeded Access to Garages, under which site conditions may be assessed and authorised road markings or other measures considered where technically and legally justified. The Ombudsman considered that this process should have been brought to the complainant’s attention or that the matter should have been referred internally for assessment, in coordination with the Local Council where necessary.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Ombudsman found the complaint partly justified.

He concluded that Transport Malta had acted correctly when it required the complainant to remove the unauthorised private signs. However, the Authority had failed to provide a clear and complete response in accordance with the principles of good administration and had relied on an incorrect interpretation concerning the parking of vehicles in front of garages.

The Ombudsman recommended that Transport Malta:

• apply Regulation 77(2) of Subsidiary Legislation 65.11 correctly and discontinue the practice whereby a vehicle is considered permitted to park in front of a garage simply because a contact number is displayed;
• inform its officials in writing of the correct position and amend, as soon as possible, any documentation supporting the incorrect practice; and
• coordinate with LESA and, where necessary, the Police so that action is taken where vehicles are parked unlawfully in front of garages, including their immediate removal or towing where appropriate.

Outcome

Transport Malta was requested to inform the Office of the Ombudsman of its position and the measures taken to implement the recommendations by 11 September 2026. No reply was received.

Consequently, on 17 September 2026, the Ombudsman referred the matter to the Prime Minister in terms of Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, with a view to securing implementation of the recommendations and avoiding the need for further action.

The recommendations remained unimplemented. Following the referral to the Prime Minister, on 15 October 2026 the Ombudsman submitted the Final Opinion and the relevant documentation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the consideration of Parliament in terms of Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act.