Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an alleged breach of planning control. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council allowed bollards to be installed on his street without proper consultation. He says this resulted in cars parking on the pavement outside his house. Mr X says he and his visitors can no longer park directly outside his house and it is now difficult for him to see oncoming cars or cyclists when he drives off his driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Cars parking on the pavement directly outside Mr x’s house, obstructing pavement users, is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X. Mr X also says the parking creates a potential hazard to other road users. This is speculative.
7. Whilst we acknowledge that no longer being able to park directly outside his own house causes inconvenience to Mr X and his visitors, this does not amount to serious loss, harm or distress.
8. Mr X says it is now more difficult for him to safely drive off his driveway because his line of vision is obstructed by cars parked on the pavement. However, many properties have cars parked on the pavement or road next to their driveways. Mr X is aware of the situation, so can reasonably take extra care when exiting his driveway. While this has some impact on Mr X, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman