Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow him to use a grass verge as a parking space. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his request to create a private parking space on a Council-owned grass verge near his home. He says the Council did not properly consider his disabled children’s needs. He wants the Council to arrange an engineer’s assessment and give permission for the parking space.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lives near a grass verge owned by the Council. He says parking is difficult because of his children’s disabilities, and he is concerned about their safety. He asked the Council to allow him to use the grass verge as a parking space.
7. The Council rejected Mr X’s request. It explained that using the land would reduce amenity and create a road safety risk. It also said that there was a risk of harm to the trees.
8. I understand Mr X is disappointed by the Council’s decision. However, the Council is entitled to decide whether it grants access to the land. Its refusal has not put him in a worse position because he did not previously have a right to use the land for parking. We therefore cannot say the refusal caused him a significant personal injustice. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. Mr X wants the Council to visit the site, arrange an engineer’s assessment and give permission for the parking space. We cannot require the Council to send an engineer or grant him rights over its land. Further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.
10. Mr X also says the Council did not properly consider his children’s disabilities or its duties under the Equality Act 2010. In its stage two response, the Council said it had considered the children’s disabilities, and other possible options, including a disabled parking bay and dropped kerb access. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
11. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint, including delays in the process. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation and we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman