Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports of illegal parking. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to address illegal parking and blocked driveways near his home over several years. He said the Council had failed to discharge its duty to prevent obstruction of the highway. He said his driveway has regularly been obstructed and he had been subjected to a physical attack. He wanted the Council to implement permanent physical and regulatory measures to prevent recurring obstruction on his road.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council did not address illegal parking and blocked driveways on his street over several years. He asked the Council to increase parking enforcement in the area and to install permanent measures to help deter illegal parking near a school.
8. The Ombudsman will not usually exercise discretion to investigate matters that took place more than 12 months prior to the complainant becoming aware of them. In this case, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in March 2026. I have decided not to exercise discretion to look at matters before March 2025 because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us about the matter sooner.
9. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it had sent enforcement officers to the street on several occasions. The Council has limited resources which must be spent on enforcement throughout the city so there is a limit to how much will be diverted to one site. It would be unreasonable for one highway issue to use a disproportionate amount of the available resource at the expense of others.
10. The Council said it had explored other options for addressing problem parking on the street such as installing bollards, active travel schemes and reviewing requests for more highway restrictions. It advised Mr X it had taken reasonable steps to discharge its duties to ensure movement of traffic.
11. Mr X told the Council he had suffered a physical attack related to the parking issues. The Council recognised this matter had been reported to the police and advised Mr X how he could also record the incident as anti-social behaviour.
12. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. The Council considered Mr X’s requests, explained what measures it had already taken, which measures it was unable to introduce and what other options were currently being explored.
14. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in sending him a response to his complaint. In its final complaint response, the Council apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint and offered Mr X £100 compensation for inconvenience and time incurred. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The Council apologised for the delay and offered an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman