Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to replace defaced signs marking out resident-only parking bays. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and investigation would not achieve anything more than the Council has already offered to try to address the issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to address his concerns about signs marking resident bays near his home being defaced. He says this allows people without permits to park in the bays, forcing him to park further away, and says he has suffered abuse. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. I understand Mr X is frustrated by not being able to park in resident-only parking bays and by the abuse he has suffered by other members of the public, but we could not hold the Council responsible for the actions of others. The Council is also under no absolute duty to issue fines or to remove all cars wrongly parked in resident-only bays.
5. The Council has however sent two different officers to visit the area at different times and neither could find any evidence of the defaced signs Mr X refers to. It has provided Mr X with photographs in support of its response although Mr X says it has simply photographed the signs which have not been defaced. While Mr X says this makes him look like a liar the Council has not accused him of any wrongdoing. It notes the second officer tried to contact Mr X while in the area so he could show them the defaced signs but the number it had for him could not connect. It also specifically allows for the fact its officers could have been looking in the wrong location and invited Mr X to meet with them to show them the location of the defaced signs. But there is no suggestion Mr X took the Council up on its offer and he instead complained to the Ombudsman.
6. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to the issue and we could not achieve anymore than the Council has offered; in order for it to take action to resolve the problem it must first identify the affected signs. It has attempted to do so but has not been able to find them. If Mr X wishes to pursue the matter he should engage with the Council to help it locate the signs and the Council may then take action to deal with the matter. We could not recommend the Council must replace signs it cannot identify without any further assistance from Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and we could not achieve anything more than it has offered Mr X already.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman