Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about parking regulations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Councils response to provision of resident only parking and it not enforcing current parking regulations.
2. Ms X said that she cannot use her driveway correctly because of the parking by other road users. It has caused her stress, anxiety and impacted sleep.
3. Ms X wants the Council to refund her costs for a kerb crossover and provide enforcement measures for non-resident parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X complained to the Council about non-residents parking in her street. She asked the Council to enforce parking restrictions and set up resident permit parking.
9. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint and invited her to complete a request for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The Council set out its limitations of enforcement in its reply.
10. Ms X later contacted her MP to assist with the parking issues. The Council responded by inviting Ms X to request a CPZ, explained its limitations in enforcement and agreed to an increase of Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) patrols in the area affected.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. Reasonably the Council cannot be held responsible for the actions of road users and how they park. There is not enough evidence of fault here by the Council. It has clearly explained the limitations of enforcement. There is nothing further we could add.
12. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision. Instead, we look at whether there is sign of fault in the process by which it made its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision so we will not question the merits of the Council’s decision even though Ms X disagrees with it.
13. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome that Ms X wants. We cannot instruct the Council to reimburse her for the cost of the kerb crossover. The Council has however agreed to consider Ms X’s request.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about parking enforcement because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman