Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided to introduce parking controls. The matter has not caused significant enough injustice for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council broke its commitment to discuss with him his objections to proposed parking controls before it decided to impose the controls and did not respond properly to his objections.
2. Mr X says this prevented him discussing his objections in the hope of changing some of the proposals. He also says if he had known the Council would not discuss the matter, he would have contacted other residents and councillors to campaign for changes to the proposals. Mr X reports the parking controls will cause inconvenience when his household members or visitors want to park on the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and online maps and photographs of the area in question.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. As paragraph 3 explained, the Ombudsman will not necessarily investigate just because of an allegation the Council is at fault. I have considered whether the matter causes Mr X significant enough injustice for us to investigate.
7. I have first considered the parking controls’ impact on Mr X’s household. The controls limit parking times in Mr X’s street and neighbouring streets on Monday to Friday daytimes, preventing all-day parking on weekdays. Mr X states he often has visitors during those times.
8. Mr X’s household has two cars, which can park comfortably off the road on his property. Mr X says a third car, for example belonging to a visitor, could also fit on the driveway but would be inconvenient because the various cars would have to move in and out of the driveway if someone needed to leave. I do not consider that a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. Mr X told me if more than three cars were at his property simultaneously, which he says happens several times a month when he has more than one visitor, the fourth car could not fit in the driveway. Mr X reports that would mean one car having to park in the nearest unrestricted parking area, which is over a mile’s drive and around half a mile’s walk away. From the photographs I have seen, a fourth car might fit in the driveway, but even if it could not, I do not consider the occasional inconvenience to Mr X’s visitors (or to Mr X if he chose to move his car instead) would amount to significant enough injustice to merit us investigating.
10. I recognise Mr X also feels frustration and a sense of missed opportunity that he did not have the discussions he expected with the Council and did not campaign with other residents and lobby councillors about the proposals. However, I do not consider this significant enough in itself to warrant investigation, in the context of changes to parking arrangements that do not in themselves cause a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman