Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of obstructive parking in her road. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what she wants. If Ms X considers the Council’s position to be unlawful, this is better considered by a court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to take enforcement action against vehicle owners who she reports regularly park their vehicles in a way which obstructs her road. She says this restricts her access and means vehicles and pedestrians are forced to trespass on her property to turn around and manoeuvre. She wants the Council to act to ensure the highway remains clear.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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. In its complaint response, the Council said there were no parking restrictions in Ms X’s road, so it was unable to take enforcement action.
8. It said it did not have powers to remove vehicles that were allegedly obstructing the highway and so could not take the action she requested. It said any complaint about a highway obstruction caused by a vehicle was a matter for the Police.
9. It said although its position was that it did not have the power to act, it did acknowledge her concerns about parking. It said it would write to all nearby residents to remind them to keep the highway clear.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. However, as the Council has appropriately considered the matter before reaching its position, we cannot question the outcome. We could not require the Council to take the action Ms X wants.
11. If Ms X considers the Council’s position is unlawful, this would be a matter better considered by the courts. We could not determine the legality of the Council’s position.
12. If Ms X considers that vehicle owners have trespassed on her property and caused damage, this would be a private legal matter between Ms X and the owner of the vehicle.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what Ms X wants. If Ms X considers the Council’s position to be unlawful, this is better considered by a court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman