Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the highway and parking provision near her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to investigate her complaint about a lack of sufficient, safe parking provision near her home. She say her and local residents’ safety is at risk because a few residents use most of the public bays with multiple vehicles. She complains the Council failed to consult residents or consider the safety of lone women and shift workers having to walk long distances, including late at night, when unable to park close to their home.

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. (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. Miss X complains that she and local residents are unable to park close to their homes because a certain number of residents, who own multiple cars, take up most of the parking spaces in the residential area. She complains this behaviour is affecting her and other residents’ quality of life, property values and the safety of residents, particularly lone women and shift workers who have to walk long distances, including late at night, when unable to park close to their home. Miss X wants the Council to investigate the behaviour of residents with multiple cars and consult residents with a view to introducing a parking permit or bay allocation scheme.
7. I have reviewed the Council’s complaint responses. I am satisfied it properly considered all concerns raised by Miss X. The Council provided clear reasons explaining why it had refused Miss X’s request to investigate vehicle use by individual residents or consult residents on potential parking schemes. More specifically, the Council said:

• its Antisocial Behaviour Team had considered her neighbours’ actions, but decided it was not something the team could investigate further.
• it recognised that when some residents owned more cars this meant others had to compete for free public parking spaces. But, the Council could not take enforcement action against a resident who was parking legally with a properly taxed and insured vehicle. In Miss X’s case, the parking spaces were on the public highway land where any motorist was allowed to park vehicles legally.
• the value of properties was not a matter it had to take into consideration when deciding on public parking. Rather, it must consider matters like immediate safety or traffic management issues.
• it no longer had a budget to create more parking spaces in residential streets. This was because the Local Transport Plan policy guides focused on introducing measures that supported walking, cycling and public transport rather than car use. It also had no legal basis to allocate bays to residents on the public highway when they were freely available on a first come, first served basis.
• timed restrictions or limited stay parking were not recommended in residential areas. This was because residents needed to park near their property for varying lengths of time in a way that met their own personal or family needs.
• it was not proportionate to make a small parking area in a residential estate into a Parking Permit Area. This was because it would result in excessively expensive permit prices for residents and, as there was no external factor bringing non-residents to the area, competition between residents for spaces would remain. Similarly, the Council had a limited budget and it did not have the resources to justify investigating the parking permit proposal when it was unlikely that residents would support the introduction of excessively high permit costs. It is for the Council to decide how to allocate its limited resources.

8. Based on the above, we will not investigate as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the highway and parking provision near her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman