Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking controls as the controls do not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains North Essex Parking Partnerships Joint Committee (NEPPJC) introduced parking restrictions in areas near Mr X’s home, which displaced parking onto Mr X’s street. Mr X says there was inadequate consideration of local conditions and NEPPJC did not consult the adjoining local authority in whose area Mr X’s street lies. Mr X says the displaced parking causes serious congestion with double parking in his street, which he reports is already heavily used by through traffic and residents. He suggests this has increased safety risks.
2. NEPPJC acted under delegated powers from Essex County Council, which is the highway authority with power to introduce such restrictions. Where a council delegates a function, we consider it remains ultimately responsible for its delegate’s actions. So we have treated this as a complaint against Essex County Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also viewed online maps and photographs of the relevant area.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not necessarily investigate every complaint. As paragraph 3 explained, we must consider the injustice caused. It is not our role to police or oversee councils’ activities generally.
7. I note Mr X has his own off-street parking. So the increased parking on his street does not affect his ability to park conveniently at his home.
8. I appreciate the increased congestion is a change to Mr X’s situation and causes some inconvenience. However, I do not consider that is significant enough to warrant investigation.
9. The alleged safety risk is necessarily somewhat speculative. Also, many streets can be heavily parked and frequented by traffic. The onus is firstly on motorists and pedestrians to adjust their actions according to the road conditions. So I am not persuaded this point in itself warrants investigation of whether there was fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman