Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking provision because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to provide sufficient parking on the road outside his home, has been issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) 24 hours a day and has failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him inconvenience and upset as he feels ignored by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y says he is unhappy at the lack of parking in his area. Currently his area has parking for both residents and their visitors, which in turn means it can be difficult to find a place to park close to Mr Y’s home.
8. The Council considered Mr Y’s complaint and how it could increase parking, but found that at present, funding was not available for parking to be increased, but explained that proposals had been made and were being considered within the area. In making its decision, about creating additional permit parking zones to allow for more residential only parking areas, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance both of its own and from legislation and information including from its public consultation about parking in the area. The organisation followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
9. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation, as there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we will not investigate this.
10. Mr Y has also complained about parking enforcement taking place 24 hours a day, after he received a PCN. In its complaint response, the Council explained that parking enforcement could take place at all times of day, 24 hours a day under legislation. It explained that the enforcement of double yellow lines was often related to road safety. As the Council is able by law to conduct its enforcement activities for this purpose, it is unlikely we would find fault in it carry out this work. Also, if Mr Y believes he should not have received the PCN, it is for him to approach the Council to make representations and then the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if he wishes to appeal. Consequently, we will not investigate.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, relating to parking provision in Mr Y’s area, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y's complaint. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman