Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his report that access to his garage was obstructed. The Council apologised for its lack of communication which remedied any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to visit in July 2019 when he reported on its website that his garage access was blocked by a vehicle. He says he chased the Council four times in four months and did not get a reply until he complained in December. Mr X says the information on the Council’s website is not helpful. He says the Council does not reply to reports of parking incidents. He says the Council’s civil parking enforcement regime is not providing a quality service as required by government guidance. Mr X says his garage was blocked forty hours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. The information includes the Council’s replies to his complaints.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X has a garage with double yellow lines restricting parking in front of it. He lives in an area which is particularly busy in summer and he says over the year’s vehicles park in front of his garage. This blocks his access usually for short periods of a couple of hours or so.
5. Mr X says on Sunday 21 July 2019 a vehicle was blocking his garage from 2pm. He says the same day he reported the problem to the police who in the past have acted. However, this time the police stated they had no power to do so and advised he contact the Council. Mr X says his garage access was blocked for forty hours. On Wednesday 24 July, he reported the problem via the Council’s website. Mr X’s reply to my draft decision says the police had sent him to Wyre Borough Council and that Council sent him to the County Council. The Council’s complaint reply says it visited the area on 16 August and on a later date and there was no obstruction.
6. On 1 December 2019 Mr X complained to the Council about his experience of its website and the lack of contact from its parking enforcement. He told the Council it had been impossible to contact it by telephone and that parking in front of his garage continued.
7. On 3 and 12 December 2019 the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. The comments include the following:
1. Parking enforcement endeavours to visit problem areas as soon as possible but cannot provide an instant service. It receives 300-400 reports each month. It visits as soon as possible if a situation is dangerous.
2. The Council has limited powers. It can issue a penalty charge notice but cannot remove a vehicle.
3. The Council says it will visit Mr X’s property again and invited him to provide details of when the problem is most prevalent.
4. The police have powers to act in Mr X’s situation of obstruction.
5. ‘I would like to offer an apology for you having to make a formal complaint about your situation’.
8. Mr X’s reply to my draft decision says he wasted a lot of time pursuing the Council which failed to answer legitimate questions and did not apologise. He says the Council has a revenue targeted approach to parking offences that does not give priority to double yellow lines. He has ideas for changing practice. He says the Council should improve information on its website to prevent a repetition. His reply does not refer to a similar incident and says he told the Council that: ‘apart from summer peak, it is a random event’.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
10. The Council did not cause Mr X an injustice by its delay in replying to his report that his garage was obstructed. Mr X reported the obstruction three days after the obstruction started and when the vehicle had gone. The Council says it does not have the power to remove the vehicle. An earlier response would not have made a difference.
11. There is no fault in the complaint reply. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint promptly. It apologised for the need for him to complain (no response in 4 months). It explained how the parking enforcement service operates. The Council stated that it would monitor Mr X’s area.
12. I have considered Mr X’s comments about the Council’s website and its parking enforcement practice. I do not consider there is sufficient reason to investigate. The Council’s apology and explanations are sufficient to conclude this complaint. Investigation is not likely to result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his report that access to his garage was obstructed. The Council apologised for its lack of communication which remedied any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman