Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council enforces parking restrictions in a road adjacent to the complainant’s drive. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council does not take appropriate enforcement action to deal with parking contraventions in a road near his home and adjacent to his drive.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and photographs. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X raised some issues with the Council. These included a request for a bollard to improve visibility on leaving his drive and better parking enforcement. Mr X said parked cars make it difficult at times to safely use his drive. He also said there was a lack of parking enforcement.
5. In response, the Council explained why it would not be safe or practical to install a bollard or modify the pavement near Mr X’s drive. It also provided information about how often officers patrol the street and the number of parking fines issued. It explained officers have to cover a large area so cannot be in the street every time there is a parking offence. The Council did, however, place the street on the list for regular patrols. It also said it would consider installing parking restrictions near the driveway. But, it also said this might not progress because, in the past, other residents had not supported proposals to install more restrictions or a permit scheme.
6. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response. He thinks bollards could be installed and accused the Council of ignoring safety issues. He remains of the view the Council should take more action to patrol the street and issue parking fines. Mr X sent the Council photographs of cars parked in breach of the restrictions.
7. I appreciate Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, and disagrees with its reasons and explanations, but I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately by considering Mr X’s request for a bollard and then explaining, in detail, why it is not possible. The fact that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response does not mean there was fault in the way the Council responded. And, it is not fault for a council to decline a service request.
8. The Council provided information about the action it takes to patrol the street and issues fines. It also said it would consider installing new parking restrictions although warned Mr X that may not be possible due to the views of other residents. I do not doubt parking contraventions occur but the Council has explained why it cannot provide a service which could address every parking breach. I acknowledge Mr X thinks the Council could do more but there is nothing in the Council’s response to suggest we need to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman