Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install bollards on the grass area where he used to park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to install bollards on the area of grass next to his property where he has parked his car for many years. Mr X is disabled and says he previously had a verbal agreement he could park there. He says he is only able to walk a short distance and so he needs to be able to park close to his front door.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph one, above.
7. The Council investigated. It told Mr X it decided to install the bollards to prevent further damage after an inspection found there was considerable damage to the grass area.
8. It said Mr X had not been granted permission to park there and the area in question is not suitable for parking as it is a landscaped green space which would require a driver to drive over the pavement to access. It explained that parking on this area is a contravention of the Highways Act and that Mr X should not continue to park there.
9. The Council told Mr X he could apply to the County Council for permission to install a dropped kerb. However, it noted an application may be declined because the access would be on a bend and opposite a junction. It also provided Mr X with signposting information on how to request disability adaptations via the County Council to possibly provide a hard standing parking space outside his property.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has confirmed the area was not suitable for parking and he had not been given permission to park there. The Council’s decision to take action to prevent further damage to the area is one it was entitled to make and it has clearly explained its reasons to Mr X. It has also provided suitable signposting information to Mr X. There is nothing further we could add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation were we to also investigate.
11. Mr X also raised concerns in his complaint to this office about his benefit entitlements and housing concerns. I have not considered these issues here as they were not raised as part of Mr X’s complaint to the Council. We are the final stage following the conclusion of the Council’s complaints procedure and so we do not consider complaints about matters the Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider via its full complaints procedure. Mr X can raise these concerns to the Council and it will signpost him to this office in its final response.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman