Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to move home due to his fears about his safety and about its failure to take enforcement action in relation to a disabled parking bay he uses. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not listened to his concerns about feeling unsafe in his property and his wish to move. He says it has not taken into account his disabilities and personal circumstances. He says it has also failed to take enforcement action in relation to a disabled parking bay he uses because of his mobility issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s complaints about these matters, the Council has explained that while it has note of his reports of past acts of anti-social behaviour (ASB) directed towards him, there is insufficient evidence of a need to rehouse him. It has told Mr X that if there have been any recent problems following his last report in October 2023, he should report them to the police and the ASB team.
7. While Mr X may be unhappy about the Council’s decision here, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council has confirmed it is aware of Mr X’s disabilities and personal circumstances and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decision.
8. The Council has explained its role and that of the County Council’s Highway Authority in relation to disabled parking bays and parking restrictions. The bay in question is advisory and the Council has no powers to take enforcement action. The Council has told Mr X about the procedure involved if he and other residents want resident parking restrictions introduced in their area.
9. There was delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It has apologised for this and offered him a payment of £100. Given this, and that we will not generally investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue, this matter will not be pursued.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman