Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to take action to stop vehicles driving over the pavement to park in front of shops in the complainant’s area. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy if she believes the Council is failing to properly maintain the pavement, and there is insufficient evidence of other fault causing the complainant a significant personal injustice, and we are unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to take action to stop vehicles driving over the pavement to park in front of shops in her area.
2. She says this has caused damage to the pavement, so she must consciously avoid tripping on the uneven surface. It also means she has to walk round the vehicles to enter the shops.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
7. The law also 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)
8. And we may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the vehicles parked outside some of her local shops.
11. But the Council has explained the vehicles are parked on private land, so it cannot issue penalty charge notices (PCNs). It is also entitled to decide how to use its limited resources, and has explained to Mrs X why it will not install bollards in this location. As such, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating these parts of the complaint.
12. And if Mrs X is unhappy about the resultant condition of the public pavement, it is open to her to apply to the magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. If the highways authority does not respond in time or does not accept it is responsible for maintaining the road, the person may apply to the crown court for such an order.
13. Mrs X may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the pavement. I find it is reasonable for Mrs X to do this. The court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work.
14. And in response to our enquiries, the Council says it hopes to progress its discussion with the private landowner by the end of September 2025. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome, so we would not investigate the complaint for this reason too. Whilst I appreciate Mrs X may feel frustrated by any delay by the Council in reaching this point, I am not persuaded the injustice to Mrs X is so significant as to justify investigating this part of the complaint either.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault with regard to the Council not issuing PCNs or installing bollards.
• it is reasonable to expect her to use the alternative court remedy which is available.
• we are unlikely to achieve a substantively different or worthwhile outcome.
• any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman