Summary: We will not investigate how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about its parking enforcement practices as Mr X is not caused a level of injustice, from the alleged Council fault, significant enough to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is operating a two-tier enforcement strategy that allows food delivery scooter riders to park without sanction but continues to penalise others for parking illegally. Mr X complains the Council did not properly investigate his complaint, did not visit the location and said he was mistaken when he said he had witnessed a parking enforcement officer ignoring illegally parked scooters. Mr X says he has been frustrated by the Council’s responses and that he has spent a lot of time on the matter.

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 any alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I recognise Mr X has strong feelings about this matter, but we will not investigate as I do not consider he is caused a level of personal injustice from the Council’s parking enforcement practices or from the Council’s response to his complaint, to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not caused a level injustice from it to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman