Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her reports of dangerous parking outside a nearby school. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to investigate and act to reduce safety risks caused by dangerous parking outside a nearby school. She says this is putting pedestrian safety at risk and causing disruption for her and other local residents. She wants the Council to apologise and implement safety measures to make the road safe.

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 or continue 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complains the Council has failed to investigate and act on her concerns. She says it has relied on out-of-date travel data and the school’s travel plan, which does not actually solve the problem or reduce the safety risks caused by inconsiderate and dangerous parking.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said it was satisfied the school was working to promote safe and sustainable travel to its families. It said the school was engaging in a range of initiatives both with the children and parents, which included a reminder to parents about considerate parking and to avoid stopping on yellow lines or blocking driveways. It said the school was also working with the Council and it had an upcoming meeting to discuss the matter. It accepted the school’s travel plan needed updating and committed to doing this.
8. It advised her that if she still felt extended or new road markings were needed, she could submit an application for a community Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The Council would then consider her request through the formal TRO process. She could also report any vehicle obstruction or antisocial behaviour to the Police.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with a decision. Instead, we look at whether there was any fault in how it reached its decision. 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.
10. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s position, it appears to have appropriately considered her concerns and so we could not require it to take further action as she wants. It is satisfied that the school is promoting safe parking and sustainable travel to its families. It has committed to further reviewing the matter and working with the Council to update its active travel plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman