Slough Borough Council (19 007 936)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Not upheld
Decision date : 12 Dec 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of Mr C. He says the Council did not follow procedure when it gave planning permission for a redevelopment project and unlawfully removed vehicles from the land. The Ombudsman will discontinue the investigation because there is no evidence of significant personal injustice.
The complaint
- Mr B complains on behalf of Mr C. He says the Council did not follow procedure when it gave planning permission for a redevelopment project and unlawfully removed vehicles from the land.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
- the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
- the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered:
- Mr C’s complaint and the information Mr B provided; and
- documents supplied by the Council.
- Mr B, Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.
What I found
What happened
- In December 2017, the Council granted planning permission to redevelop a site near to where Mr C lives.
- Residents used the site to park on. They did not have a right to park on the site and did so without permission. In January and February 2019, the Council issued notices to residents that work would be starting on the site and to remove their vehicles.
- Residents did not move their vehicles, and in May 2019 the Council arranged for the site to be cleared. Bailiffs moved vehicles from the site to nearby streets. Mr B says the bailiffs who cleared the site used unnecessary force and harassed residents. Mr C witnessed the site clearance but did not have a vehicle on the site.
- Mr B says Mr C did not know about the 2017 planning application until the Council started to clear the site in May 2019.
Analysis
- When deciding whether to investigate, we consider personal injustice. Mr B complains redeveloping the site has blocked an access route Mr C used to cross the site and witnessing the actions of the Council to clear the site of vehicles caused him stress.
- Resident’s may have to access facilities using different routes or entrance following the redevelopment, but this is not considered a significant personal injustice.
- Since 2016 when the garages on the site were demolished in 2016, residents have had no right to park on the site. Vehicle owners who parked on the site did so without permission. As vehicles should not have been parked on the site, there is no injustice.
- As paragraphs 11 and 12 demonstrate, there is not enough evidence that Mr C suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions of the Council and I have discontinued the investigation.
Final decision
- I have discontinued the investigation into this complaint because the injustice to Mr C by the alleged fault is not so significant the Ombudsman would recommend a remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman