Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking and access issues in the complainant’s road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council has not done anything to help regarding parking and access issues in her road. She also complains of delayed responses. Ms X wants the Council to provide a resolution.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Ms X. This includes the complaint correspondence and photographs. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X lives in a narrow cul de sac. For many years Ms X has been reporting parking and access issues to the Council and the police. Ms X reports that cars park opposite her drive making it hard to use her drive. Ms X has also reported pavement parking. Ms X has contacted the police but says they referred her to the Council.
5. In response the Council explained that it cannot take any enforcement action because there are no parking regulations in the street (for example, yellow lines). It said it is not illegal to park opposite a drive although drivers should park responsibly. It does not have any enforcement powers but said the police can take action against obstructive parking, which could include parking that prevents use of a drive.
6. The Council explained it would have to create a Traffic Regulation (TRO) to implement restrictions in the street. It has limited resources and said it assesses applications against a set criteria. The Council explained the criteria which includes, for example, roads with a high volume of traffic and a record of accidents or death. The Council invited Ms X to apply for a TRO but stressed it appeared her road does not meet the criteria and she made an unsuccessful application for a TRO in 2022.
7. Due to the lack of space in Ms X’s road I can understand why using her drive may be hard at times. However, I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council correctly explained it cannot take any enforcement action because there are no restrictions to enforce. It signposted Ms X to the police, who can act if there is obstructive parking, but it is for the police to decide if action is warranted. The Council explained the criteria it uses to assess applications for a TRO and tried to manage Ms X's expectations in terms of whether an application may be successful.
8. There were some delays by the Council in responding to Ms X as she raised concerns in December 2023 and did not get a response. The Council apologised for the lack of response and, while this may have been frustrating, it is not an issue that requires an investigation.
9. I also will not start an investigation because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome. We cannot ask the Council to take enforcement action because there are no restrictions to enforce. And, it is for the Council, not us, to decide if an area warrants a TRO.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there is no meaningful outcome we could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman