Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the date parking controls will be introduced in Mr X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has stalled the progress of the introduction of a residents parking zone in his area and has refused to provide a date for completion of the scheme.

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 may decide not to continue with 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council because he had been told by the City Council that the residents parking scheme for his area would be in operation by the beginning of the year and it is not yet in place.
6. The Council responded to his complaint and explained the scheme has not been delayed and that it is progressing. However, it said that due to the fact that it and its contractors are delivering a high number of schemes throughout the county with priorities which move on a regular basis, it cannot give a precise timeframe at present. However, it confirmed the City Council will be in touch once dates for delivery of the scheme have been confirmed.
7. While Mr X is frustrated at having to wait longer for the scheme’s introduction than he would have liked, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council which warrants investigation. The Council is responsible for determining the priority of such schemes and it is not always possible to give an accurate timeframe for the introduction of them.
8. Moreover, while the anxiety and disappointment Mr X says he feels because the scheme has not yet been put into operation is noted, his injustice is not at a level which warrants a formal investigation by the Ombudsman. Damage caused to his property by careless drivers is not the Council’s responsibility.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman