Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about vehicles obstructing his driveway. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation and any injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider or take steps to address vehicles repeatedly blocking his driveway when visiting commercial units near his property. He also complained it delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X said these matters caused distress, inconvenience and a potential risk to safety. He wanted the Council to increase enforcement, repaint faded yellow lines, install better signage and reconsider the suitability of parking for the commercial units.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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. Mr X complained to the Council about vehicles repeatedly blocking his driveway when visiting commercial units near his property, which he said posed a potential risk to safety. He also complained that he was required to report each obstruction individually which he felt was burdensome.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and confirmed it had advised enforcement agents to increase patrols within the controlled hours and would monitor the patrols. It also passed Mr X’s comments about parking provision for the commercial units to the relevant department for consideration.
8. The Council explained that whilst enforcement would be carried out within the controlled hours, Mr X would need to report any obstructions outside of the controlled hours individually. This is because under the Traffic Management Act (2004), these matters are not automatically enforceable and can only be enforced when reported by an occupier.
9. We will not investigate this matter as the Council has taken reasonable steps within its power to consider and address Mr X’s concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.
10. In any event, we will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the council. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• The complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the Council, or
• There are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a longer period of time.
11. In this instance, the injustice alleged by Mr X is the requirement to report each obstruction separately. Whilst Mr X has said he feels this to be burdensome; this is not a direct result of any fault by the Council.
12. Mr X also raised a potential risk to safety caused by the obstructions; however, this is a hypothetical injustice. Any injustice Mr X has experienced is not significant enough to justify investigation.
13. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. However, 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

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation and any injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman