Summary: Mr X complained about parking problems on the street where he lives. He said the Council was supposed to adopt all blocked paved areas when the housing development was built but failed to do so. We have discontinued our investigation. That is because the Council has offered to conduct further searches and make enquiries with residents. It is better placed to do so than the Ombudsman and its offer to review matters is in line with the remedy the Ombudsman may have recommended.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about parking problems on the street where he lives.
2. He said when the housing development was built it was planned the Council would adopt all blocked paved areas. This includes a space outside a neighbour’s house, which should be communal. However, the neighbour has claimed the space as their own and developed it.
3. Mr X said this happened because the Council failed to adopt the space as intended on the original plans for the development.
4. The Council however said this was because issues emerged about the records of the highway adoption of these areas compared to what was intended on the original plans for the development.
5. As a result, Mr X said residents have lost a communal parking space which had been available for many years, and they have also lost an area which was used to turn their vehicles around. This also creates access problems when the likes of visitors and delivery drivers have to park on the narrow road and can cause access problems for large vehicles like the Council waste collection vehicles.
6. Mr X would like the Council to correct its mistake.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. I have summarised some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
10. There are no pavements on the development where Mr X lives. The road, which is block paved, extends to the boundary of each property. There are also block paved sections outside some properties which Mr X says are ‘communal’ parking bays and act to make the road wider to allow vehicles to pass.
11. I have seen some original plans for the development which show the boundary of the road and then a narrow service strip adjacent to each property boundary. The plans also show the ‘communal’ parking bays Mr X refers to.
12. However, I have also seen title plans for a property on the development and these show the land title extending over the service strip and the ‘communal’ parking bay, right to edge of the road.
13. Mr X sometimes parked his car in a ‘communal’ bay outside a neighbour’s house. He has done this for many years, as do other residents.
14. In 2021, the new owner of the neighbouring house left a rude message on Mr X’s car when he used the ‘communal’ bay.
15. The owner of the neighbouring house then later dug up the ‘communal’ bay, taking out some block paving, and put in a border with gravel in line with their garden. This meant only part of the bay is now available.
16. When Mr X contacted the Council, it said his neighbour now owns the bay because the Council had not adopted it.
17. Mr X complained. He said the Council failed to check all planning information, did not properly investigate, did not consult resident (and take their evidence into account), and did not tell residents of its decision.

My investigation

18. In response to my enquiries the Council told me the housing development was built in the 1980’s and the planning authority was the then District Council. In 2009, the District Council and the County Council combined to create a unitary authority. The Council has so far been unable to find a formal highway adoption agreement for the development.
19. Due to incomplete and conflicting information about the development, the Council decided to remove the parking bay outside Mr X’s neighbour’s house from its records about the extent of the highway.
20. The Council said it was unaware of some documents Mr X has recently provided to the Ombudsman when it made its decision.
21. The Council therefore considers it would be right for it to conduct further searches of records and archives, and engage with residents of the development, to collate any other evidence about the adoption and extent of the highway.

Analysis

22. I have decided to discontinue my investigation. That is because the Council has offered to look into the matter again and is better placed to do so than the Ombudsman.
23. Our role is to investigate Council decision making. While we can make findings about whether there was fault in the Council’s decision, we are not an appeal body. It is not our role to overturn the Council’s decision or re-make it.
24. Mr X wants the Council to adopt the road and ‘communal’ parts as per the original plans. This case involves complex issues on legal property rights which the Ombudsman does not have the power to decide.
25. If the Ombudsman found fault in the Council’s decision making in this case, we would likely recommend the Council make the decision again properly. The Council’s offer to carry out more searches and engage with residents is therefore considered a suitable remedy. At the end of that process, Mr X can still complain if he remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have discontinued my investigation. That is because the Council has offered to conduct further searches and make enquiries with residents. It is better placed to do so than the Ombudsman and its offer to review matters is in line with the remedy the Ombudsman may have recommended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman