Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to erect ‘no parking’ signs outside the gates to the complainant’s home. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s consideration of the matter. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, says the Council refuses to put up signs telling drivers not to park outside the gates to his home.
2. Mr X says he other residents are regularly blocked in or out because or cars parked on the pavement outside the gates or across the dropped kerb. He says this is dangerous as emergency vehicles would not be able to access the apartments where he lives if needed.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• 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 have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman, the information he provided, and the Council’s responses.
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives in a gated mews. He complained to the Council that drivers regularly park in front of the access blocking residents from getting in or out.
7. The Council says it told Mr X that:
• it had directed its enforcement contractor to undertake robust action
• in an emergency contact the police
• to continue to use the Council website to report parking offences
• the highways department have been asked to review the road
8. Mr X complained again.
9. The Council acknowledged there was a delay in responding to his original complaint. It also confirmed:
• parking enforcement is continuing, particularly at night when Mr X had advised there was a problem; and
• blocking the access for emergency vehicles is a criminal offence, and should this happen Mr X should call the police
10. The Council also confirmed it highway team had reviewed the road marking. It confirms it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb, regardless of the road markings in place. The site is also within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and the space across the dropped kerb is marked with a yellow line and is clearly not within a marked parking pay. Therefore, further changes to road marking/signs are not necessary.
11. The Ombudsman cannot replace the decision of professional officers with one of his own. And we cannot criticise a professional officer’s opinion if there is no fault in the process leading to the opinion/decision.
12. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s complaints. It arranged for additional parking enforcement at the site. It explained that preventing emergency vehicle access is an offence. As is parking across a dropped kerb regardless of road markings. The Metropolitan Police website states it a vehicle is parked in a way that would prevent emergency vehicles from accessing [a property] it can be reported to the Police. It also states that if a person has blocked your driveway and is preventing you from getting your own vehicle out, the matter can be reported to the Police as anti-social behaviour.
13. It is unlikely that we could add to the Council’s investigation. Or that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
14. The Council has acknowledged the delay in its response to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for this. I consider this to be a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And an apology is a suitable remedy to the complaint about the delay in response to his concerns.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman