Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to adequately respond to the complainant’s concerns about parking outside his home. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault, other bodies are better placed to consider some of the issues being raised, and the Council has apologised for the delay in the complaint process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action in response to his reports of dangerous and obstructive parking, breaches of parking restrictions, and breaches of easements for access to and egress from the highway.
2. Mr X also complains:
• the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint.
• the Council failed to respond to a subject access request, and refused to comply with a directive issued by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
• a councillor made comments about him on social media, which resulted in abusive messages being sent to him by members of the public.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We also normally expect someone to refer the matter to the ICO if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. We may also decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has already taken or proposes to take in response to the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
8. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive, underlying issues.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the information provided by Mr X, and information from the Council about whether Mr X had made a code of conduct complaint about the councillor.
10. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. I appreciate Mr X feels the Council should have done more in response to his reports of dangerous parking on the road outside his home. But our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. We do not overrule Council decisions or tell it how it should operate its services.
12. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions or responded to issues being raised. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. On balance, I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns about parking in his area, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve much more for him. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• When Mr X contacted the Council in May 2023 about the parking problems and possible changes to the parking restrictions, it advised his request was too late to be added to the 2023 parking review for the area. It said it would be added to the next review, which was scheduled to start in March 2024, and it has explained how this review process works.
• The Council has explained when it can issue PCNs and, in December 2023, it instructed its parking enforcement contractor to make extra patrols of the area. It says it will continue to send enforcement officers as often as reasonably possible.
• The Council has given Mr X contact details for reporting vehicles committing parking contraventions.
• A ‘Keep clear’ road marking exists across the length of the dropped kerb at its junction with Mr X’s access driveway.
• The Council has no power to introduce parking controls on private land.
• The Council has inspected the grass verge outside Mr X’s home and, whilst it might look unsightly, it did not meet the threshold for repairs.
13. If Mr X thinks the Council is liable for any damage to his property, then we would normally expect him to seek a remedy in the courts, either directly or through his insurers. This is because he is essentially saying the Council has been negligent. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether the Council has been negligent, and we have no powers to enforce an award of damages. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr X should not be expected to pursue a court remedy, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
14. Similarly, if a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, the person affected can apply to the magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. We normally take the view the courts are in the best position to decide whether a local highways authority has complied with its statutory duty to maintain a highway and, unlike the Ombudsman, it can order the Council to do any required work. So, the Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the condition of the grass verge.
15. And with reference to paragraph 6 above, where a person is unhappy with the Council’s handling of a subject access request, we would normally expect them to pursue this with the ICO. This is the body specifically set up by parliament to uphold information rights.
16. The Council has also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint Mr X submitted in October 2023 and any frustration this has caused him. On balance, and given that we are not investigating the substantive issues Mr X is complaining about, I am satisfied the apology is a reasonable way to address this part of the complaint, so we will not pursue it further.
17. Finally, it is open to Mr X to submit a code of conduct complaint to the Council if he remains unhappy with the comments made by a councillor on social media.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because there is not enough evidence of fault, other bodies are better placed to consider some of the issues being raised, and the Council has apologised for the delay in the complaint process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman