Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council has caused him and his family injustice from failing properly to address nuisance parking of cars and vans on a lane between two sections of a cemetery. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the Council causing Mr B significant injustice, so investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has caused him and his family injustice from failing properly to address nuisance parking of cars and vans on a lane between two sections of a cemetery since he raised the matter in 2016. Mr B says the vehicles obstruct the footway, and their drivers and operators cause disturbance from maintenance work and noise immediately next to family graves, which is distressing, and he has suffered time and trouble from pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered what Mr B said in his complaint, some of his email exchanges with the Council, and its responses to his complaint at all three stages of its complaints procedure. I have also given Mr B chance to comment on a draft before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B first raised the matter of nuisance parking on the lane next to the cemetery, including parking on the footway causing obstruction for pedestrians, in 2016. Any complaint about the way the Council handled the matter in the months following is late. However, as the Council proposed a solution to mitigate the problem which Mr B thought would help, there is no need for the Ombudsman to investigate anything other than recent events. I have not therefore disapplied the legal requirement in paragraph 3.
8. The solution Mr B thought the Council had agreed was to create a waiting restriction on the side of the lane nearest his family graves. In the event, and following a change of people involved, the Council created the restriction on the opposite side of the lane. Mr B complained about that when he found out, and his complaint to the Ombudsman about it is not late.
9. Over three stages of the Council’s complaints procedure and the correspondence before that, the Council has explained to Mr B how it considered the matter and how it decided to carry out its decision to restrict waiting in the lane. It has also explained the extent of its enforcement powers, those of the police, and the differences between them.
10. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s explanations of what it has done and its reasons for not doing what Mr B wanted and what it may originally have intended. Councils may change their decisions if there are reasons, even if people disagree with them. The Council has explained its reasons in this case, and it is not open to the Ombudsman to criticise them or substitute our own view of the matter.
11. I recognise Mr B wishes to spend time quietly in reflection when he visits his family’s graves, and noise and disturbance close by are likely to cause distress. I must also consider the Council must use any powers it has proportionately, and I do not consider that could ensure preventing the disturbance Mr B complained about. It is also the case the disturbance comes from unthinking behaviour of other people, not the Council; the Ombudsman cannot investigate them.
12. Mr B has complained about how the Council ran its complaints procedure, but we do not investigate the way a council handles a complaint if we are not investigating the subject of the complaint itself.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of procedural fault by the Council causing Mr B significant injustice, so investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman