Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking issues outside his property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains on behalf of his partner Ms Y, about people parking on the grass verge outside their property. Mr X says this causes Ms Y difficulty in crossing the grass verge as she has mobility issues and sometimes uses a wheelchair. Ms Y has fallen several times and is very nervous crossing the grass verge.

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. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council on behalf of his partner, Ms Y, about cars parking on the grass verge outside their property. Mr X said this makes it difficult for Ms Y to cross the grass verge either by foot or in her wheelchair and she is very nervous of doing so. Mr X asked the Council to tarmac over the grass verge.
8. The Council explained it does not advocate the removal of grass verges as they are a valuable asset providing habitat for wildlife and are an aid to prevent flooding. It said it did not condone parking on the grass verge and it would take action to try to stop it from happening by writing to residents to ask them not to do so. It explained it takes a proportionate approach on these matters as the cost of formal enforcement action is significant.
9. The Council also noted that there is a pathway to the side of the verge in front of the property which can be used for access rather than using the grass verge.
10. Mr X says the pathway can also be muddy due to the cars parking on the verge.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision not to tarmac over the grass verge there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered the issue Mr X raised and has taken proportionate action in response. The decision not to remove the grass verge is one the Council is entitled to make and it has explained its reasons. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to tell the Council it should have reached a different decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way it reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman