Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking enforcement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not done enough to deal with nuisance parking on his road. He says the parking is a blight on the area and causes him stress as he is concerned about the increased risk of an accident. He wants the Council to patrol the area several times a day, install CCTV cameras and introduce camera enforcement or put bollards on the pavement to prevent parking in restricted areas.

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, 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))

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. Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) can restrict or prohibit parking on the public highway.
6. Mr X’s road is subject to parking restrictions which means the Council may issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to anyone who contravenes them. But while the TRO allows the Council to issue PCNs it places no duty or obligation on the Council to constantly monitor the road or to issue PCNs to every vehicle which contravenes the restrictions.
7. Mr X believes the Council should do more to enforce the restrictions but the Council’s responses show has taken his concerns seriously and done what it can in the circumstances. It has explained to Mr X that officers visit the road regularly and have issued more than 200 PCNs over a period of seven months, but it has limited resources and cannot be there all the time.
8. The Council also met with Mr X to discuss the matter and agreed to look into increasing patrols and whether it could consider other options to deal with persistent offenders.
9. Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s actions and wants it to do more, but we cannot say it must. Resource allocation is a matter for the Council alone and we cannot tell it to do what Mr X suggests just because he wants it to. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s handling of the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman