Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to reports of parking obstructions of her dropped kerb. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. In addition, the Council has already considered the concerns raised and taken appropriate action within its powers. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure suitable enforcement action and preventative measures had been taken to prevent repeated obstructions of her dropped kerb.
2. Ms X said these issues caused emotional distress and difficulty in accessing her garage. She wanted to the Council to make an actionable plan and install physical measures to prevent the issue continuing.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Ms X reported a vehicle was repeatedly parking in contravention of parking restrictions and obstructing a dropped kerb outside her property. She said this impacted her mobility and wellbeing and restricted access to her garage.
7. The Council considered Ms X’s concerns and responded confirming it had arranged for its Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) to carry out additional patrols in her area during enforceable hours. It advised her CEOs are only dispatched outside of these hours when a complaint is made, but it would prioritise all complaints received by Ms X.
8. The Council passed Ms X’s request for physical measures to its Highways Team for consideration. The Highways Team inspected the site. It told Ms X that installation of physical measures, such as bollards, would not prevent further obstruction as they could only be installed on the footway.
9. The Council confirmed that the yellow lines will be refreshed whenever needed. It also said Ms X can pay to have the advisory white line refreshed at any time, which may help mitigate the impact.
10. In this case, the evidence shows the Council considered Ms X’s report, investigated the matters and took proportionate action within its powers. Ms X remains dissatisfied with the outcome and considers further action should have been taken. However, disagreement with the Council’s decision does not, by itself, indicate fault.
11. Given the action already taken by the Council, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. It is also unlikely that that an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. Any investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman