Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 133)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 31 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The complaint is about parking. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the evidence we have seen does not suggest any fault by the Council disadvantaging Mr X significantly enough to justify investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with vehicles parking at a dropped kerb opposite Mr X’s vehicle access. Mr X says this causes inconvenience as it makes parking more difficult.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, or the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered Mr X’s letter to us and copy correspondence between him and the Council that he provided. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X has a dropped kerb allowing him to park on his property. At the other side of the road is another dropped kerb outside two properties. The part of that dropped kerb that is directly opposite Mr X’s access used to serve one property’s vehicle access but that access is no longer used. Mr X reports vehicles park at that dropped kerb. He states this makes driving into and out of his access difficult.
  2. The law forbids parking adjacent to a dropped kerb in a ‘special enforcement area.’ (Traffic Management Act 2004, section 86) Mr X argues this applies here so he says the Council should use its traffic enforcement powers to issue penalty charges. However, the Council’s traffic enforcement powers do not cover all situations. The Council can only act on those matters the law says are subject to civil enforcement by councils. Those matters are listed at section 73 and schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. They do not include parking at a dropped kerb. Therefore I do not fault the Council for not issuing penalty charges.
  3. Mr X suggests the Council should educate people about inconsiderate parking. The Council says that is not its role. I see no fault here. Neither can we presume any such work would necessarily resolve the problem affecting Mr X.
  4. The Council says it does not have the resources to reinstate the kerb to full height and even if it wanted to do that it would have to consult the owner of the relevant property. I see no fault here. Also, even if the Council wanted to raise the kerb, it would not necessarily get the property owner’s agreement. Moreover, raising the kerb would not necessarily stop people parking there and the Council would still not be responsible for enforcing against such parking.
  5. The Council also says it does not currently plan to seek to introduce waiting restrictions (yellow lines) here that it could enforce. That is at the Council’s discretion and the evidence I have seen does not suggest fault by the Council on this point.
  6. Mr X reports he gave evidence about the situation to his local councillor, who said this would be discussed with Council officers. The Council says it is unaware of any contact from the councillor on the matter. Mr X is dissatisfied with this. He argues there was poor communication between the councillor and officers and between those parties and him. As explained above, I do not see evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice on the substantive points about the parking. So it would be disproportionate to seek to investigate how a councillor and officers acted on Mr X’s information.
  7. Responding to a draft of this decision, Mr X argued he was entitled to better communication, especially given how much council tax he pays. The level of Mr X’s council tax does not affect my points above about the reasons it would be disproportionate to investigate how the Council communicated with Mr X.
  8. Mr X also pointed out the Ombudsman can investigate councillor conduct. That does not mean the Ombudsman need do so in every case. Here, as I have not seen enough evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice on the substantive point affecting him (the parking situation), it would be disproportionate to investigate how a councillor dealt with Mr X about the matter.
  9. Additionally, Mr X’s claimed injustice is chiefly the inconvenience and frustration of it being harder to drive into and out of his property. That stems primarily from the actions of other drivers, not directly from any action or inaction of the Council’s. Also, while I recognise Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the situation, I do not consider any inconvenience and frustration from this situation amount to a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating. So, even if there was evidence the Council might be at fault (which I have not seen), this would still be a reason not to investigate the complaint.
  10. Mr X’s response to my draft decision also suggested the law on pavement parking outside London might change in future. I note that but it is not directly relevant to my decision on the complaint about the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings