Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about pedestrian safety concerns along a public footpath. There is no evidence of Mr X suffering a significant injustice which would warrant our involvement and no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a public footpath which has parking spaces installed on it. Mr X said this caused pedestrians, specifically school children, to walk in the road.
2. Mr X said this raised emotional and moral concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council’s placement of parking bays on a public footpath, led to school children having to walk in the road. Mr X said he was concerned for the safety of the children.
7. Mr X said the Council failed to enforce parking restrictions and said it needed to introduce safety measures. Mr X said his desired outcome is for the parking bays to be moved and the footpath to be widened, to allow room for pedestrians and vehicles.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said its enforcement teams already patrol the area and PCNs are issued for people parking outside of marked bays. It also acknowledged occasions where people evade enforcement by removing number plates, but said regulations do not allow enforcement. It also agreed to restore signage which is defective.
9. The Council said when it installed the parking bays, there was enough room for both pedestrians and vehicles. However, shrubbery from the bordering land had overgrown. It contacted the landowner to tell them to cut the shrubbery back.
10. The Council also confirmed the area was already in its development plan, with pedestrian crossings planned for installation. It told Mr X it would seek confirmation for when this would happen. It agreed to consider interim pedestrian safety measures, if the works would not be completed in a suitable timeframe.
11. I consider the Council’s actions here to be reasonable and do not believe we could achieve any other worthwhile outcome by investigating Mr X’s complaint. We could not tell the Council to carry out the actions Mr X wants it to, and so we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.
12. In any case, 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 serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
13. While I acknowledge Mr X’s concerns, I have not seen any evidence of him suffering a significant injustice, meeting the threshold for our involvement.
14. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 11 and 13, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant injustice and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman