Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a report of parking at a roundabout. This is mainly because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to act after he told it about vehicles regularly parking too close to a roundabout near his home. Mr X also says he was prevented from discussing the urgency of the situation because the Council’s initial response to his report was anonymous. Mr X says he worries about his safety when using the roundabout and experienced stress from having to raise a formal complaint with the Council.

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, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X says he fears for his safety when using the roundabout, especially after witnessing a “near-miss”. I accept Mr X worries about the risks when roads adjoining the roundabout are obstructed, but as a road user he is expected to exercise due caution in all situations. Any inconvenience caused to him by having to take extra care at this junction, or worry about the possibility of a collision, does not amount to significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.
7. Any injustice caused to Mr X from receiving an anonymous reply to his report of the obstruction is also not significant enough to justify us investigating. It did not prevent Mr X raising the matter with the Council again, which he did.
8. Even if the points in paragraphs 6 and 7 did not apply, I would still not investigate because investigation would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s responses to Mr X.
9. Councils are not responsible for enforcing breaches of the Highway Code unless council-imposed traffic management restrictions are in place. As none are in place at this roundabout the Council was right to tell Mr X it could not enforce and he could report obstructions to the Police.
10. Mr X feels the Council should install restrictions to prevent parking close to the roundabout. Although the Council has the legal power to introduce them it is not under a duty to do so. The Council told Mr X if someone believes traffic restrictions are needed, the first step is to contact their county councillor. The Council is entitled to have that procedure. We would be unlikely to find fault with the Council suggesting this to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice caused by the highway obstruction he reported to the Council is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Even it was, we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman