Medway Council (24 021 207)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 28 Apr 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about irregularities in the Council’s application of highway regulations. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
- Mrs X complained the Council inconsistently enforced parking and highway regulations on her street. She said the Council applied different rules to individuals associated with a nearby organisation compared to the street’s residents. She said despite being made aware of the ongoing issues, the Council failed to enforce its own highway codes and regulations fairly or consistently.
- Mrs X says this perceived preferential treatment has resulted in increased difficulty for residents navigating the street and has caused significant frustration and a sense of injustice among the local community. Mrs X wants the Council to apply its transport and highway regulations impartially and uniformly to all individuals using the street, without granting special concessions to any single organisation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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
- there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mrs X lives near a shop on a street which turns into a cul-de-sac. She said during its hours of operation, the shop places items within the cul-de-sac area, causing an obstruction. Following her reports to the Council regarding the matter, Mrs X submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to enquire about any enforcement actions the Council had undertaken. In response, the Council stated that no action had been taken.
- In its response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the confusion caused by its FOIA reply. It explained the reply did not mean it had taken no action, but rather that no formal enforcement action had started at that time. The Council said it had followed up by sending a letter to the shop, asking them to stop the obstructive behaviour and warning them legal action could follow if they did not comply. A Council officer also visited the shop to try to resolve the issue informally, without needing to take formal enforcement steps.
- The Council took steps we would expect it to do following Mrs X’s report of the matter. It issued a letter to the shop owners, informing them of the offence and outlining the potential consequences should they fail to comply. Additionally, a Council officer visited the premises to resolve the matter amicably, thereby avoiding the need to pursue formal enforcement measures. We will not investigate this complaint, as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
- Mrs X is also unhappy about the time taken for the Council to respond to her FOIA request. She has already complained to the Information Commissioner's Office who is better placed to investigate this type of complaint. Therefore, we will not investigate it further.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman