Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council have responded to his concerns about parking provision. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has responded to his concerns. There is also not significant enough personal injustice to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not properly responded to his concerns about the parking availability for permit holders where he lives. He feels it has not taken his concerns seriously, and that it has failed to complete a review of the parking which it said it would do.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling and communication.
3. Mr X says the lack of resident only parking means that he is often unable to park near his home, causing him inconvenience, and anxiety as he cannot keep an eye on his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or

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

5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained the Council has not properly responded to the concerns he raised about parking availability for permit holders in his area. He says it has failed to carry out a review of the parking which it said it would do.
9. The Council explained to Mr X that a parking permit allows him to park during permit-controlled hours but does not guarantee a parking space or one close to his home. It said it runs a borough-wide parking policy under which most residential roads are restricted to permit holders for a two-hour period each day, with parking available to anyone outside those times. The Council also explained that it intended to review the parking arrangements but could not provide a timescale, as this would depend on available staffing and budget resources.
10. We will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:

• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and responded to Mr X’s concerns, or in how it explained its position to him. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision about when to carry out a review of the parking arrangements.
• While I understand Mr X’s frustration at being unable to consistently park near his home, the inconvenience and anxiety he describes are not a significant enough personal injustice that would warrant further investigation.
• 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 by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.
• We do not normally investigate complaint handling alone if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue. This is because any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and there is not a significant enough personal injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman