Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging for the installation of Controlled Parking Zone signage. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has unnecessarily charged him for the installation of a Controlled Parking Zone pole and signage outside his house as part of the installation of a dropped kerb at the property.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. As part of installation of a dropped kerb at Mr X’s property, the Council made a charge for installing a Controlled Parking Zone pole and signage outside the property.

Mr X complained to the Council. He said that the post and signage were not necessary and the Council should have provided a cost breakdown.

6. The Council’s reply explained:

• why the pole and signage are needed;
• how contracts with suppliers meant that cost breakdowns were not available; and
• that it correctly followed its own policy.

7. Mr X disagrees with the decision to charge him for the pole and signage. But the Council was entitled to charge Mr X for costs associated with the installation of the dropped kerb and I am satisfied it has properly explained the charge and why it is necessary.
8. The Council acknowledged there was a lack of clarity in the published guidance and apologised for this. It has said it will raise the issue with the relevant team
9. The Council also offered to remove the footway crossing and refund Mr X in full.
10. This would put Mr X back in the position he would have been in, if the published guidance had been clearer and if he had known about all the charges before deciding if he wanted to proceed with the dropped kerb application. I consider it unlikely an Investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman