Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his request for additional parking restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his request for additional parking restrictions outside his property. He says inconsiderate parking is impacting on his ability to enter and exit his property, causing inconvenience and distress. He wants the Council to install additional parking restrictions.

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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council explained how its enforcement officers did visit his road and would issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) if they found vehicles parked incorrectly. It said it said it would ask its highway team to consider his request for additional parking restrictions and installation of bollards outside his property and respond to him directly about this.
7. Mr X complained to us that he had not received a response from the Council’s highways team. Since bringing the complaint to us, the highways team has considered and responded to Mr X about this matter.
8. It apologised to Mr X for the delay responding to him. It said it had considered his requests but could not agree to them. It explained the reasons for its decision. It said its enforcement officers would continue to monitor his road and issue PCNs where appropriate.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has now considered Mr X’s request and responded to him. It has explained to Mr X why it will not agree to his request. It is for the Council to decide how to allocate its budget and as it has appropriately considered the matter, we cannot question the decision reached. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
10. There was a delay responding to his request which is likely to have caused Mr X frustration. The Council apologised to him for this in its response. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve a different outcome or anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman