Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not taking enforcement action in response to his concerns about nearby residents obstructing parking bays. This is because part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take enforcement action in response to his concerns of nearby residents obstructing parking bays. He said the matter caused him anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to take appropriate action to stop the residents from obstructing the parking bays. He also wants the Council to provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice he has experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said since 2017, he has raised concerns with the Council in relation to nearby residents placing bins in parking bays and repairing vehicles in the bays too. He said the residents have done this to reserve the parking bay for themselves.
7. Between 2025 and 2026, the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and responded to him. As part of its response, the Council:
• informed Mr X it was not able to consider earlier reports he had made as since 2021, the Council had changed its system in relation to how it recorded such reports;
• explained it assesses reports of highway obstruction based on the impact on highway users and the seriousness of the interference. Any enforcement action must be proportionate, evidence-based, consistent, transparent and targeted, considering factors such as available safe space, footfall, likelihood of compliance, public interest and resources. It will prioritise engagement and education over taking enforcement action;
• explained it must prioritise its resources towards locations and situations where there is significant risk of harm to people or damage to property;
• said in response to Mr X’s most recent reports, it carried out several site visits. Officers had witnessed on some occasions that residents had left their bins in parking bays and in response, they had asked the residents to remove them. Its officers did not witness any vehicle repairs taking place in the parking bays;
• explained to Mr X it could only take action where obstruction had been witnessed by its officers during an inspection; and
• it would continue to monitor the areas of concern.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• any concerns between 2017 and late 2024 are late and are there are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain to us sooner;
• there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council explained the threshold it applies when deciding whether enforcement action is necessary and how it prioritises such reports. Where officers witnessed an obstruction, it took informal action by asking residents to remove their bins. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to the issues identified; and
• we usually investigate complaints where the complainant has experienced serious harm or distress. We recognise the injustice caused to Mr X however, we do not consider it to be significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and any personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman