Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s reporting system in relation to parking obstructions because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s reporting system in relation to parking obstructions. He said it provides limited options to report urgent matters. Mr X said the matter caused him anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to provide him with an apology. He also wants the Council to make reasonable adjustments for him to report parking obstructions.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X submitted a parking obstruction report online to the Council. He said by the time the Council had reviewed the report, the vehicle had gone. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s delay in responding to his report. The Council told Mr X it had a rapid response contact number for urgent requests. Mr X said he has health matters which make it difficult for him to speak over the telephone. He complained to the Council about its lack of reasonable adjustments for urgent reporting.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• told Mr X that urgent parking issues must be reported through its rapid response telephone line, as this is the only reporting route monitored in real time and allows enforcement officers to be deployed promptly where appropriate;
• explained to Mr X it does not monitor online reports in real time and so does not treat them as urgent;
• informed Mr X it had considered his request for the Council to make reasonable adjustments which would allow him to submit urgent reports online. It said it could not produce a live online reporting system because it would require significant additional resources to do so; and
• advised Mr X he could ask family, a friend or neighbour to make an urgent report via its rapid response line or he could write details down before making the call himself which would allow him to be prepared for the call.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council was not aware Mr X’s report was urgent as he had submitted it online and not via its rapid response line. The Council therefore acted in line with its process.
8. The Council also considered Mr X’s reasonable adjustment request and explained to Mr X its reasons why it could not agree to them. This was appropriate. Councils are required to consider reasonable adjustments requests but they are not required to agree to every request.
9. Furthermore, the Council suggested to Mr X alternative ways he could access its rapid response line which was appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman