Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council does not take enforcement action against pavement parking. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he is forced to walk in the road in a named street due to pavement parking. He says the Council has failed to comply with the law to protect pedestrians. Mr X wants the Council to comply with the law.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Within London it is an offence to park on the pavement. The law gives London councils the power to take enforcement action against drivers who commit this offence. Councils can put up notices to allow pavement parking.
5. Mr X complained to the Council that it was not taking action against drivers who park on the pavement in a named street in the area where he lives. He said he is forced to walk in the road. He asked the Council to comply with the law.
6. The Council said the legislation gives councils the power to take enforcement action, and to erect signs, but does not require it to do so. It explained the area has a lot of narrow streets and many years ago it had decided not to enforce against pavement parking because it was in the best interest of residents not to do so. It said other residents had not asked for a different approach and the arrangement has the support of local councillors. The Council accepted some pedestrians are inconvenienced but, given the lack of space and demand for parking, it adopted this approach to balance the needs of residents, drivers and traffic. The Council suggested that enforcing the pavement ban might cause more full width parking on the road which could affect traffic flow. It said the current situation works well and it has not received evidence that the wider community wants more enforcement. It said it cannot put up signs because it is an informal decision.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council correctly explained why it decided not to enforce in this street and why the law allows for discretionary decisions. It explained the reasons for the discretionary decision and said it is a long-standing arrangement which is supported by local councillors and based on feedback from the community. The Council explained why it cannot put up signs and, in any case, signs might encourage more pavement parking.
8. I appreciate Mr X may be inconvenienced by pavement parking. However, we will only investigate if there is fault in the way a council has made a decision, or responded, and, in this case, there is no suggestion of fault. The Council responded appropriately by explaining its position regarding pavement parking and the lack of support from the wider community for a different approach.
9. It is not our role to tell a council how to manage parking in its area. If Mr X thinks the Council should change its approach, he would need to raise this with his local councillors. But, it would be for councillors and the Council to decide whether to change its approach, and any consideration would have to consider the views of other residents.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman