Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not taking parking enforcement action near his address. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or of significant injustice to Mr C, to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council has refused to take parking enforcement action near his address and has not correctly identified a footway.

Back to top

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 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I viewed maps of the area where Mr C lives. I invited Mr C to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr C says the Council is refusing to take parking enforcement action for vehicles parked on a footway near his address. He says a solid yellow line present on the road confirms the land next to it is a footway and the Council should take action. Mr C says pedestrians are unable to pass along the footway, and the Council should either take enforcement action or correct the road markings.
5. The Council said the area of land in question is not a footway and it cannot take enforcement action. It says it plans to make changes to the street to clarify the highway boundaries, repaint lines, replace signs, install double yellow lines on the road and tackle anti-social behaviour.
6. The street in question has a full-length footway on the side of the road where
   Mr C lives. This is the opposite side to the area of footway Mr C complains about. There is no compelling reason Mr C would need to use the side of the road he complains about rather than the side nearer his home. The current position does not therefore appear to cause him significant injustice.
7. The law Mr C says the Council should use to prosecute parking offences of this kind does not place on it a duty to do so; it simply gives it power to prosecute. The Council is not therefore at fault for deciding not to take the action Mr C wants. The Council has identified action it is going to take to improve traffic matters in the street. We could not add to what it proposes by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, nor of injustice to Mr C, to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has identified actions it is going to take, and it is unlikely we could add to that.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman