Summary: A resident complained about the Council’s failure to take action concerning parked vehicles obstructing an access road at the front of her house. However we do not have sufficient grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of substantive fault by the Council.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Ms B provided with her complaint and her comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also took account of Ms B’s comments in response to a draft version of this decision. In addition I considered information from the Council about its response to the parking issue.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms B lives in a house on a residential estate. There is one main road into the estate. This leads to a short, narrow access road which ends in a cul-de-sac serving some of the flats and houses. Ms B’s house fronts onto the access road.
7. The main estate road is maintained by the County Council, which is the highway authority. But the access road is owned by the Council.
8. Ms B said she had been reporting problems to the Council for five of the past eight years regarding parked cars causing an obstruction in the access road, but no effective action was taken. Ms B also said in that time she had been passed back and forth between the Council, the County Council and the police, but no-one would take responsibility for resolving matters.
9. In November 2020, on the advice of the County Council, Ms B contacted the Council again to report another incident. This time a vehicle had driven over Ms B’s front garden in order to go round a parked car in the access road which was causing an obstruction. As a result, Ms B wanted the Council to put up signs to keep the access road clear, or to install and enforce double yellow lines.
10. However the Council passed Ms B’s enquiry to the County Council which confirmed the access road was not highway it maintained, and belonged to the Council. The County Council also said it could not justify further parking restrictions in the surrounding roads. Ms B then complained to us about the Council.
11. Subsequently the Council wrote to Ms B to say it had considered the possibilities for taking action in her case. However it ruled out the option of issuing a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to install yellow lines on the basis that this was a lengthy and expensive procedure which would also mean changing its parking enforcement contract. The Council also said installing yellow lines without a TRO was not viable in view of the County Council precluding parking restrictions in surrounding streets and, in any case, would not be enforceable.
12. In addition the Council apologised for any confusion it had caused Ms B in its initial response to her enquiries.

Back to top

Analysis

13. Ms B evidently has strong views about the need for action to prevent obstructive parking in the access road. But I do not see that we have sufficient grounds to start an investigation in her case.
14. First, I consider we should not look at the Council’s responses to Ms B’s approaches regarding the parking issue before November 2019. This is in view of the jurisdictional restriction I refer to in paragraph 4 which says we normally cannot investigate a complaint someone makes to us more than 12 months after becoming aware of their issue with the council in question.
15. But having looked at the Council’s response to Ms B’s more recent concerns about the parking problem, I am not convinced there is sign of substantive fault on its part.
16. Clearly Ms B is unhappy about the position the Council has taken in her case. But we may not question councils’ decisions about discretionary matters unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made.
17. However from the information provided it appears to me the Council has noted Ms B’s difficulties, considered the available options for introducing parking restrictions, and provided a reasoned explanation for not taking any enforcement action. In addition, I suggest the Council is reasonably entitled to take account in its decision-making of the time and resources that would be needed to implement restrictions, the impact on other local residents and the viability of any enforcement scheme.
18. As a result I consider it very unlikely we would find cause to question the merits of the Council’s decision in this case on the basis there was fault in its decision-making.
19. It appears there was some fault by the Council in its initial response to Ms B last November when it referred her enquiry on to the County Council. This was despite her having told the Council that the County had already referred her back to it.
20. But I note the Council responded directly to Ms B soon afterwards and apologised for the confusion. In the circumstances I consider this to be a sufficient remedy for any fault on the Council’s part in this respect.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We do not have sufficient reason to investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action concerning obstructive parking in the access road at the front of her house. This is because there is no sign of substantive fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman