Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to properly suspend parking regulations for a time when she paid for the service. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complained about the Council not properly suspending parking regulations for a space outside her home so that vehicles associated with work to her home could park outside. She says this caused difficulty because the space was obstructed, and she paid over £1,000 for the suspension. She wants a refund from the Council for its failure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Ms X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X paid the Council to suspend the parking restrictions outside her home to allow vehicles to deliver for building works at her home. She says the Council failed to put up signs about the suspension and it resulted in it being obstructed and deliveries had to be re-arranged. She also says one contractor received a parking penalty when parked there.
5. The Council told Ms X that suspensions cannot guarantee that third parties may obstruct the site by ignoring the suspension. It says it put a notice in place, but this appears to have been removed. It replaced the notice when it was made aware of this. Ms X disputes that a notice was ever placed on site. It did patrol the site and a penalty was issued because the vehicle in question was not notified to the Council as being involved in the works.
6. Ms X says she did not know all the registration numbers of the vehicles involved and that giving these details was only an option. However, the Council’s website information for applying for a suspension states that registration numbers are required so that enforcement officers know which vehicles are exempted from penalties. The Council subsequently cancelled the penalty when it was made clear the contractor was working at Ms X’s home.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
8. In this case the Council followed the correct procedure, but the notices appear to have been removed by other parties. The Council could not guarantee the suspension would not be obstructed and Ms X applied at very short notice. The Council did attempt to penalise vehicles violating the suspension but Ms X had not provided the particulars of her contractors so it could not distinguish between permitted vehicles and others.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman