Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council asking Mr X’s removal company to move their vehicle because it was parked overhanging a section of road where a ‘no loading/unloading’ restriction applied. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X is clearly unhappy with the ‘no loading/unloading’ restriction but it was his choice to move to the area and we cannot say it must change the road layout or parking restrictions just because he would like it to do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council told his removal company to move its vehicle while it was parked on the road outside his house because it was parked partly on the road where a ‘no loading/unloading’ restriction applied. Mr X says he was a passenger in the vehicle and had displayed his blue badge and he believes the Council discriminated against him. He is unhappy about the restrictions and says there is no warning about it; he says that had he knew it applied he may not have moved to the area.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
5. There is clearly some confusion about the reasons for asking the removal company to move their vehicle as Mr X says the vehicle was parked in a disabled parking bay displaying his blue badge. But in front of the bay there are ‘no loading/unloading’ markings on the road and it is therefore likely the removal vehicle was overhanging the disabled bay and parked partly where the no loading/unloading restriction applied.
6. The no loading/unloading road markings are in the form of two short lines on the kerb/pavement perpendicular to the road and there is no requirement for the Council to put up signs to warn of the restriction because the markings are self-explanatory.
7. I appreciate Mr X was frustrated that the removal company was asked to move but this did not cause him significant injustice. Mr X confirms that shortly afterwards another space became available and the removal company was able to continue moving him into the new property.
8. Mr X has suggested changes to the parking restrictions but the Council is not under any duty to make changes simply because Mr X would like it to do so. If Mr X had concerns about the availability of parking and the parking restrictions he could have decided to move elsewhere. We cannot say the Council must make the changes Mr X wants.
9. Mr X has reported misuse of the disabled parking bay and the Council confirms it carries out regular enforcement patrols but it cannot be present at all times and it is not responsible for the actions of inconsiderate motorists.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman