Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with obstructions on the road near his home that prevented lawful parking. We found fault in the Council’s handling of the obstructions, which as a person with restricted mobility, caused Mr X avoidable distress when seeking to park close to his home. To address the injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, explain how it would respond to the obstructions, and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to act in response to the continued obstruction of the road next to his home. Mr X had restricted mobility and needed to park near his home.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X said he had been complaining about obstructions on the road near his home, which were continuing, for about two years before he first contacted us. So, parts of the complaint were late (see paragraph 3 of this statement). The items obstructing the road of concern to Mr X had not substantially changed since he first started to report them. So, as those obstructions were continuing, I saw no good reason to exercise my discretion and consider Mr X’s complaint back beyond 12 months before he first contacted us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Councils have various powers to deal with items left on public roads. Whether any power is relevant depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the available evidence.
9. For example, under the Highways Act 1980, the powers and duties of councils, which are local highway authorities, include those to act if people have:

• wilfully obstructed;
• erected or set up a structure, including on wheels, capable of causing obstruction;
• deposited anything to interrupt a user; or
• deposited anything causing a nuisance,

on a public road.

10. And, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have powers and duties to address fly-tipping and littering. The 1990 Act also allows councils to tell their residents where and when they may place their refuse bins on public roads for collection.
11. The various legal powers and duties that might be available to councils may allow them to issue formal legal notices and fixed penalties; prosecute in the courts; and or remove items.
12. When Mr X first complained to the Council about items obstructing the road near his home, the Council had a 2018 Enforcement Policy. The 2018 Policy said the Council would act in a balanced and proportionate manner in deciding what, if any enforcement action to take. Generally, action would be in stages starting with giving people advice through to prosecution in the courts. And the Council’s Environmental Enforcement Team would handle problems affecting public roads. The 2018 Policy referred to it being illegal to wilfully obstruct public roads but said obstruction was a subjective issue. This meant the Council considered each case on its merits taking account of relevant issues, for example, the width of the road.
13. In 2025 the Council adopted a replacement Streets and Environment Enforcement Policy. The 2025 Policy reflected the former 2018 Policy. For example, it referred to proportionate enforcement that intensified until people complied. The 2025 Policy also said the Council would assess cases on their merits taking account of relevant considerations. And it referred to the subjectivity of assessing wilful obstruction of public roads. However, the 2025 Policy said the Highways Enforcement Team would deal with highway issues.
14. The 2018 Policy and the 2025 Policy both covered fly-tipping and littering. The Council’s website allows people to report fly-tipping online. The Council aims to resolve reported fly-tipping issues within two working days.

Consideration

15. People do not own the public road outside their home, which (subject to any legal traffic controls) is available for anyone to park kerbside. Sometimes demand for on road parking exceeds the available space. People may then try to ‘reserve’ the space outside their home and stop others parking there. This can be understandably annoying for people trying to lawfully park. They will see a potential parking space they cannot use because of items deposited on and obstructing the road. This was the position faced by Mr X when he started contacting the Council about obstructions on the road near his home.
16. In reporting the obstructions, Mr X provided photographs and videos of the road. He also gave the Council the registration numbers of cars that parked kerbside when the obstructions were not in place.
17. In response to Mr X’s reports, the Council wrote to the residents it found most likely responsible for the obstructions. Such a step was in line with both the 2018 and 2025 Policies, which referred to stepped action that would normally start with warnings and advice. However, when the obstructions continued, the Council said it could not take further action as it lacked evidence to show ownership of the items on the road. The Council suggested Mr X apply for a disabled parking bay, which if approved and installed would be available for use by blue badge holders. (A blue badge is a parking permit available to some people, for example, if they have limited mobility.) Mr X had reasons for not asking the Council to consider installing a disabled parking bay.
18. I recognised the Council offered Mr X a possible way forward to help him with parking in suggesting a disabled bay. I also recognised the Council might face difficulties identifying the ownership of items on the road. Although Mr X’s photographs and videos suggested a link between some items and peoples’ homes. However, it was for the Council to decide whether it would step up its response to people depositing items on the road or take no further action. But, if the Council’s decision was not to act and to close the case, good administrative practice required that it clearly explain this to Mr X and so conclude the matter. The evidence did not show the Council did this.
19. And, Mr X continued to report the obstructions and then formally complained to the Council. In response, the Council said it would write to residents about the Highways Act 1980 and wilful obstruction of public roads. Mr X replied saying the Council’s letters were being ignored and more residents were now obstructing parts of the road. Mr X said the Council should act to resolve the problem and not expect him to continually report it.
20. In its further complaint response, the Council said it had sent multiple letters to residents telling them not to reserve parking spaces by placing items on the road. The recently adopted 2025 Policy provided for stronger enforcement action, with increased officer patrols. Its Highways Team followed a stepped procedure from warnings up to, where necessary, fines or prosecutions. The Highways Team were gathering information so enforcement could be focused on ‘hotspots’, although it noted only Mr X had reported obstructions along the road. The Council gave Mr X contact details should he have questions or need updates. I found the Council’s complaint responses inconsistent with its previous statement that it would not take further action (see paragraph 17).
21. The Council’s Highways and Waste Teams then exchanged emails about which was responsible for dealing with the items obstructing the road. The Waste Team said the Highways Team were responsible as the items obstructed the road. The Highways Team said they could not identify the people responsible for depositing the items. So, they needed to be dealt with as fly-tipping and removed by the Waste Team. The evidence did not show which view prevailed or whether the Council physically removed the items from the road.
22. Mr X’s photographs also showed the same items were repeatedly obstructing the road. It was therefore unclear why the Council had earlier told Mr X it could not take further action because of unknown ownership if it considered such items were ‘fly-tipping’. I saw no good reason why the Council could not have removed the items as ‘fly-tipping’ before Mr X formally complained.
23. However, the Council told us it had not received any road obstruction reports for three months. But Mr X had told us about further obstructions, providing photographs, which we advised him to report to the Council. Overall, I found the evidence showed obstruction of the road continued. I also recognised that Mr X had likely become frustrated and disillusioned having to repeatedly report the same obstructions to the Council.
24. Overall, I found the Council had fallen below acceptable administrative standards in dealing with Mr X’s reports of obstruction, which was fault. I also found the Council’s inconsistent replies and early failure to consider the items as ‘fly-tipped' caused Mr X avoidable distress.

Action

25. Having found fault causing injustice (see paragraph 24), I considered our guidance on remedies. To address the identified injustice in a proportionate, appropriate and reasonable way, the Council agreed (within 30 working days of this decision statement) to:

• send a written apology;
• write to explain what, if any, steps it will take and when to remove fly-tipping from the road and deal with any further incidents of fly-tipping. And, if the Council decides not to take further steps to fully explain that decision before closing the case; and
• make a symbolic payment of £300,

in recognition of the avoidable distress to Mr X caused by its fault.

26. In making the paragraph 25 apology, the Council should consider our guidance on remedies on making effective apologies.
27. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out at paragraph 25.

Back to top

Decision

28. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman