Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of antisocial parking by a user of a nearby leisure facility. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take action to deal with antisocial parking by a motorist and user of a nearby leisure facility. He said the motorist’s actions reduced the number of available parking spaces in the road and blocked access to a side road.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X reported his concerns about the motorist to the Council leisure facility after the motorist had twice parked outside his house. He says their vehicle blocked access to a side road and that his neighbours assumed it was something to do with him. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not uphold his complaint and believes leisure centre staff should have visited his property and taken action against the motorist.
5. But there are no parking restrictions on Mr X’s road and leisure centre staff have no powers to issue penalty charge notices or to take action against motorists even if they have breached parking restrictions or caused an obstruction. They also do not have any access to the DVLA database to match the vehicle registration number shown on the vehicle’s numberplate to any individual in order to raise the issue with them directly.
6. Instead, the leisure centre sent emails to those on its user list to remind them to park considerately and the Council confirms it is reviewing the leisure centre code of conduct to address the issue. In the circumstances it is unlikely we could say it should do more.
7. It is also unlikely we could say the Council’s approach to the issue has caused Mr X significant injustice as Mr X does not claim any direct injustice from the alleged obstruction and his correspondence with the Council refers only to two instances of antisocial parking by the motorist. The Council does not take on responsibility for the motorist’s actions and, as set out above, the leisure centre staff had no power to stop them from parking on the road.
8. Should Mr X experience any further issues he may report them to the Council’s parking enforcement team or the police. They are better placed to deal with the issue than leisure centre staff.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman