Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway parking and insufficient maintenance of a tree causing damage. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation, and because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue his damage claim through the Council’s insurers.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to respond to his concerns about highway parking and insufficient maintenance of a tree, close to his property. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his contacts with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended.)

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law 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.)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, and the Council’s published approach to Traffic Regulation orders (TROs).
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says that parking close to his property causes obstruction and a safety hazard. The Council says that although it has the powers to add parking restrictions, this process would require a Traffic Regulation Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This would involve consultation with local residents and the emergency services. The Council has decided not to take action.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. Mr X also says the Council has not properly maintained a tree close to his property, which has resulted in damage to a vehicle and a garage roof due to falling branches.
9. Mr X may reclaim cost of remedial work through the Council or its insurers. If this does not provide an outcome he is satisfied with, he may pursue a claim in court. Only a court can decide if the Council should be liable for the damages to Mr X’s property.
10. It would not be a good use of public money to investigate the Council’s handling of contacts and communication in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that would warrant an investigation, and it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue a claim through the Council’s insurers and then court if he is dissatisfied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman