Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of parking restrictions in an area of public open space in the city. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has failed to enforce parking restrictions on roads adjacent to a public open space called The Downs. He says numerous vans, motorhomes and caravans flout the restrictions and prevent citizens and visitors from parking next to The Downs and using them as freely as they should.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the ongoing presence of vans, motorhomes and caravans parked at The Downs in contravention of the parking restrictions in place in the area.
7. At Stage 1 of its complaints procedure, the Council told Mr X the limited waiting time restriction was enforced regularly and gave details of the number of visits and PCNs issued over a six month period. It said its Neighbourhood Enforcement Team was also dealing with the issue of vehicle dwellers in other ways.
8. At Stage 2, the Council set out in some detail the process it has to follow in relation to van dwellers. It also explained the difficulties it faces in taking action under the powers it currently has available but told Mr X senior officers are reviewing the situation with a view to finding a solution to the presence of the caravans and vehicle dwellers.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council is following its policy on dealing with vehicle dwelling on the highway and continues to assess the situation. While the current situation is disappointing for Mr X, there is no evidence to suggest fault has affected the Council’s decisions. For this reason, and the limited personal injustice caused to Mr X, we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman