Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to change misleading road markings and signage outside the complainant’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to amend misleading road markings and signage outside her property, which give motorists the impression that they can park across her driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point, we can 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X.
• Internet ‘street-view’ images of Ms X’s road.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Ms X is unhappy about the road markings and signage outside her property, and that she spends time and effort on telling motorists not to block her driveway and on calling the Council’s parking enforcement team.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. The Council has explained that whilst works to change the road markings/signage might be relatively minor, they would still require a legal consultation process before any changes could be introduced. Due to the time and cost involved, the Council has decided not to proceed with this process until such time as a wider review of the parking restrictions in the area is undertaken. In the meantime, the Council has registered Ms X’s request for alterations, and it will continue to review any opportunities for introducing changes as they arise. Ms X can also continue to report vehicles blocking her driveway to the parking enforcement team.
8. The Council is entitled to decide how to utilise its limited resources, and it has explained the reasons for its decision to Ms X. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman