Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s removal of road markings from the road outside his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X claims his father suffered personal injury as a result of the Council’s contractor’s actions but this is a matter for the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council removed road markings from outside his property which prevented motorists from parking across his driveway. He says the contractors who carried out the work intimidated his father by driving their maintenance vehicle close to him, causing him physical and mental harm, and complains that since the markings were removed motorists have parked across his driveway, stopping him from driving onto the public highway.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. The Council has explained the reasons it removed the markings from the road and it is not for us to question them.
8. While Mr X refers to other similar markings on the road in his area the photos he has provided suggest these have been in place for some time. The Council has explained it has repainted some markings in error but its policy is not to do so. This is because the markings are not enforceable and cost money to maintain and it is not therefore good practice to keep them. Any errors by the Council in maintaining the road markings in other cases does not cause Mr X significant injustice.
9. Further, because the road markings are not enforceable what the Council could do for Mr X before and after it removed them is the same. It is parking across the driveway which is prohibited- not failure to comply with the markings- so if any motorist parks a vehicle in front of Mr X’s driveway he may contact the Council to attend the property and issue a penalty charge notice (PCN). This is the same as it would and could have done before the markings were removed. So while the markings may have put some people off parking in front of Mr X’s property they did not stop anyone from doing so. The injustice Mr X claims in this case stems from the actions of inconsiderate motorists and the Council has provided a suitable way forward for Mr X to report them.
10. Parking across a driveway and preventing access to the public highway may also amount to an offence; Mr X may therefore be able to report any instances to the police.
11. I appreciate Mr X is also concerned about the Council’s contractor’s actions but the injustice he claims from this issue lies in the physical and mental harm he says his father suffered. We cannot determine claims for personal injury so if Mr X wishes to pursue the issue it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s removal of the road markings or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman