Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about residents obstructing parking bays. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council did not act on evidence provided that parking bays were being blocked.
2. X said they have been unable to use the bays due to obstructions.
3. X wants the Council to remove them off the vexatious list and stop the obstructions.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. X complained the Council did not act on reports of residents who cause obstructions to parking bays.
8. We will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
• The Council explained that in response to X’s reports it completed a site visit, posted letters to residents asking them not to obstruct the bays and organised ongoing warden patrols. This is an appropriate response from the Council and therefore there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
• X had other parking available at their home. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

X complained the Council added them to a vexatious list. During my enquiries the Council explained that when it referenced the list, it was incorrect. It has since apologised to X, confirmed there is no vexatious list, and offered a symbolic payment of £50 for the distress it caused. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s response addressed any injustice caused to X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman