Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council has declined her request for parking restrictions in her road. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has dealt with matters and an investigation by the Ombudsman will be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council has refused her request that it put in place road markings to prevent parking opposite her dropped kerb nor will it introduce a residents parking scheme. As a result, she has been blocked in her drive and she is concerned she may not be able to get out to visit her elderly mother when needed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B complained to the Council about the difficulties she faces when cars park directly opposite the dropped kerb to her property which can lead to her being blocked in. She also complained about cars parking over the pavement and asked that it introduce parking restriction markings to stop such behaviour.
6. The Council responded to her complaints to advise it does not provide such markings on demand and that instead it has to prioritise according to set criteria. It explained the criteria and that its limited budget means it has to consider carefully, in line with its criteria, where such measures will be most effective. It advised Ms B that cars parked on the pavement are a matter for the police and that she should report vehicles obstructing the pavement to them.

Assessment

7. While Ms B’s concerns are understandable, our role is to consider whether fault by a council has caused the complainant injustice. We cannot review the merits of decisions properly taken by the councils no matter how strongly the complainant may disagree with them.
8. In this case, the Council has set criteria which it uses to prioritise where it will introduce parking restrictions. Unfortunately for Ms B, her road is not one which currently meets the criteria and the Council has explained it will not be taking the action she desires. This is disappointing for Ms B but it is not evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in how it has dealt with matters and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman