Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the usage of car ramps. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for its failure to respond to Mr X’s query. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating its later decision to issue a letter, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his query regarding the usage of car ramps on his road. He subsequently purchased car ramps only to be informed by the Council that their usage was illegal and they must be removed.
2. Mr X said this caused unnecessary stress and financial loss and he wanted the Council to reimburse him for the car ramps.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. We

pv27 (but removing bits that repeat above)

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Failure to respond to Mr X’s query

7. Mr X said he contacted the Council via telephone and email in March 2025 to ask whether the use of car ramps was permitted on his road. He said it did not respond to his query.
8. The Council upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint and apologised for the failure to respond to his query.
9. We will not investigate this matter as the Council has accepted and apologised for its failure to respond to Mr X’s query, which is a reasonable remedy for this issue. It is unlikely that further investigation by the ombudsman would lead to a different outcome because this fault did not directly cause the injustice Mr X claims. The Council did not inform Mr X ramps were permitted, and he purchased the ramps at his own risk, without clarification.

Council’s letter to Mr X regarding usage of car ramps

10. Mr X said as he did not receive a response from the Council to his query, he purchased a set of car ramps for usage on his road. Shortly after, he received a letter from the Council telling him the use of car ramps were illegal, and they should be removed immediately.
11. Absence of response to Mr X’s query does not qualify as permission to place car ramps on the road. Mr X chose to do so in the knowledge that they might not be permitted.
12. We will not investigate this matter as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for fault it identified, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the remaining parts of the complaint to warrant investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman