Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement of a dropped kerb because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault and the injustice cause is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the Council has failed to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to vehicles blocking access to her driveway over a dropped kerb. She complains about the Council not responding to her emails promptly and initially failing to investigate her complaint.
2. Ms Y says this means she has paid for a dropped kerb which she cannot access because of parked cars. She says the Council’s poor communication caused her frustration during a difficult time.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided about the complaint. Ms Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms Y applied to the Council to have a dropped kerb installed to allow access to her driveway. Since the dropped kerb was installed, Ms Y says she has not been able to access her drive because of cars parked over the dropped kerb.
7. Ms Y complains the Council has not issued PCNs to enforce against the parking. She provided the Council with photographs of vehicles parked over the dropped kerb alongside her complaint to the Council.
8. The Council’s response shows it has considered the issue and the evidence Ms Y has provided. It has considered this and found that the parking did not meet the criteria needed for the Council to issue a PCN to the vehicle owners. It has explained the way it has considered this and its reasons for its findings. As the Council properly considered Ms Y’s complaint about the parking, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in this complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
9. Ms Y has also complained about the Council not responding to her emails promptly. This includes her complaint, which the Council initially did not investigate as it says it did not recognise she wanted to raise a formal complaint.
10. Ms Y says it has been hard to deal with the Council at the same time as caring for her seriously ill father. However, the substantive matter Ms Y has said she is seeking an outcome for is about the parking over the dropped kerb, not the Council’s communication. While any lack of response to her emails may have caused frustration and made a hard time more difficult, the irritation caused is not so significant an injustice to warrant us investigating this complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. Further, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue which here is the parking. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault and the injustice cause is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman