Summary: Mr X complaints about the actions of a civil enforcement officer when he parked in a loading pay to deliver an item. He also complaints an officer lied to him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
• about the actions of a civil enforcement officer when he parked in a loading bay
• that an officer lied when he made his complaint
• the Council’s response to his complaint was late
2. He wants the Council to acknowledge it was wrong, make loading bays clearer with better signage and to be more consistent in its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint form and the Council’s final response to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says he parked his van in a loading bay in the town centre. A civil enforcement officer (CEO) asked him to move forward to allow another van to park. He says the officer then told him the it was not appropriate for him to deliver his items as it was not the correct use of the loading bay. Mr X says it took 45 minutes to find another parking space. Because of this he was late in making his delivery and lost to contract.
6. He complained to the Council. He says the person he spoke to told him the loading bay was for lorries only. The loading bay signs do not refer to use by lorries only.
7. The Council wrote to Mr X. It confirmed it has reviewed the footage from the CEO’s bodycam on the day of incident in the loading bay. It says the officer did not act inappropriately or give any false information.
8. It also confirms the loading bay is for loading and unloading large or heavy bulky items that require the vehicle to be close to the location to which they are being delivered. And the loading must be continuous. If an officer believes from their observation that loading/unloading is not being carried out legitimately then enforcement action may be taken following the required observation period.
9. The Ombudsman may not criticise the Council unless he is satisfied the complainant has suffered injustice through administrative fault by the Council. Unless fault and injustice are present, he may not pursue the matter.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision that his delivery did not meet its definition of loading or unloading. He also says the signs are not clear, and its actions are inconsistent. He says he has witnessed other drivers parking their cans and vans in the loading bays and not being moved on.
11. However, the Council confirms the bodycam footage of the incident shows the CEO gave him the correct information. The signage shows the bay is restricted to vehicles loading and unloading. Mr X was neither loading nor unloading, therefore he was not permitted to use the parking bay. I have not seen any evidence of fault in this regard.
12. Turning to Mr X’s assertion that other drivers have used the loading bay without being moved on. I do not intend to investigate this point as Mr X has not been caused any personal injustice on this point.
13. Mr X also complains the Council officer lied to him by stating the loading bay is for lorries only. The Council says there was no reason for the officer to deliberately provide false information. It has apologised if for any misunderstanding. The Ombudsman cannot make any judgement on this as we cannot confirm what either party said.
14. Finally, the Council’s complaint response to Mr X was 2 days late. While we expect the Council to respond according to its complaints policy, I do not propose to investigate this issue further. I do not consider it to be a good use of public resources to investigate this point when I do not propose to investigate the substantive issue raised by Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault. And any further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
    Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman