Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take action in respect of parking issues outside his property. The Council treated the area as a hot spot and so increased the number of enforcement visits. It says this did not indicate a problem at a level that required it to take further action. This is the Council’s professional judgement and there is no evidence of fault in how it reached this view.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take action in respect of parking issues on his road which affect road safety.
2. Mr X says his view is obstructed when he leaves his property as well as all road users and pedestrian’s safety being put at risk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s property is set back from the road and is accessed via a driveway. There is a single yellow line on the road outside his property. Mr X says that motorists ignore this and regularly park on the single yellow line which obstructs his vision and compromises road safety.
7. Mr X contacted the Council in April 2019 to report the illegal parking and asking the Council to take action. The Council told Mr X the area would be added to its “hot spot” list so extra parking enforcement visits are carried out.
8. Mr X continued to contact the Council and asked for his concerns to be treated as a complaint. The Council responded explaining the area was on its hot spot list but this would not result in daily visits due to staffing restrictions. Mr X had noted an enforcement officer visited recently and there were no parking contraventions at that time.
9. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints’ procedure. While acknowledging that staffing issues made it difficult to monitor all areas effectively, Mr X suggested other action could be taken. He thought bollards could be installed or the single yellow line replaced with a double yellow line.
10. The Council responded saying the area was still on the hot spot list for increased enforcement visits. The Council explained it was not an offence to park half on the road/half on the pavement unless the vehicle causes an obstruction. It says this then needs to be reported to the police.
11. The Council said it would need to consider if the area warranted the installation of double yellow lines. It did note that this would not necessarily stop people parking on them. With regard to bollards it said the traffic section did not routinely support the installation of bollards as it can cause problems for disabled pedestrians and there are also maintenance issues. It said it had not received any other complaints about this area.
12. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage three of the complaints’ procedure. The Chief Executive wrote to Mr X acknowledging his frustrations but also supporting the action taken so far. He said the level of improper parking outside Mr X’s property had not yet reached a level where the Council would consider increasing the levels of enforcement currently in place.

Analysis

13. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process and not the merits of decisions properly taken even though people may disagree with them. I am satisfied that the Council responded promptly after receiving the first report from Mr X of the problems in his road. The Council added the area to its hot spot list for enforcement officer.
14. The information provided by the Council shows the area was visited 16 times between 11 May and 28 November 2019. On four of the visits parking infringements were noticed and six penalty charge notices were issued. This means that there were 12 visits where no notices were issued. The Council also says that the penalty charge notices were not issued to vehicles parked on the single yellow lines outside Mr X’s property.
15. I appreciate Mr X may want more regular visits to this area. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to tell the Council how to use its resources. The Council has explained it has a limited number of civil enforcement officers and so cannot visit this area every day. It has explained to Mr X that it will utilise the officers more in areas where it finds more illegally parked vehicles such as the town centre. The Council has used its professional judgement in deciding when officers will visit Mr X’s road. I find no evidence there is fault in this decision and so cannot criticise its actions.
16. Mr X has suggested the Council could take other actions to improve the parking problems such as the installation of CCTV, bollards or double yellow lines. The Council has explained why it does not consider this appropriate. It says there is no history of any injury accidents in the last 15 years outside Mr X’s property though there have been two accidents at a nearby junction. It has explained bollards cause issues for disabled pedestrians as well as being an ongoing maintenance expense. The Council also states no other complaints have been received about this area.
17. I appreciate this is an issue for Mr X and his direct family. However, I am satisfied the Council has considered and responded to his complaints explaining why it does not consider any further action is required. Mr X may not agree with the Council’s view but I am satisfied it has consider the complaints, visited the area more frequently than before Mr X complained and explained why it does not consider further action is required. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has considered this matter and so I am unable to criticise its decision that no further action is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman