Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the widening of a vehicle crossover at a property next to the complainant’s home, and associated parking enforcement action. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to respond to his concerns and questions about whether his neighbour’s widened vehicular crossover is in accordance with the intended plans/dimensions. Mr X says he and other residents have been deprived of a parking space because it is now only big enough to accommodate a small vehicle, and he preferred to park his vehicle in that space for safety reasons.
2. Mr X also suspects the Council was being untruthful when it said associated penalty charge notices and warning letters were issued to residents during a random patrol of the area, and he wants the Council to provide evidence to substantiate its claim. Mr X believes the enforcement action occurred following requests for intervention by his neighbour.
3. Mr X says the Council’s officers have been unprofessional, obstructive, dismissive, and unhelpful in responding to his enquiries and complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence,
• online ‘street-view’ images of Mr X’s road, and,
• our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X feels the work undertaken by the Council to his neighbour’s crossover may not be in accordance with the planned dimensions, and feels the Council has not answered his questions or provided information in this regard. But I have seen nothing to suggest the crossover contravenes any highway standard/regulation, so I find there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman investigating this part of the complaint.
8. I also acknowledge Mr X says the works have reduced the on-street parking close to his home. But I am also mindful that there is no statutory right to park on the highway outside your home, it is still possible to park a vehicle in the space, and Mr X has his own off-street parking available. I therefore do not consider the widening of the crossover causes Mr X a significant personal injustice.
9. Similarly, whilst I note Mr X does not believe the information provided by the Council about the presence of parking enforcement officers in the area, I am not persuaded that any associated injustice to Mr X is significant enough to warrant our continued involvement in the matter.
10. As the Ombudsman is not investigating the substantive issues at the heart of the complaint, we will not pursue any associated concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman