Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled her concerns about parking enforcement outside her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and we could not add any further meaningful outcome. Part of the complaint relates to a Subject Access Request; the Information Commissioner’s Office is the best suited body to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• failed to properly investigate her concerns regarding parking enforcement outside her property;
• provided contradictory information;
• was inconsistent in enforcing obstruction of the footpath; and
• failed to provide all documents requested under her Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. Mrs X said these issues have caused emotional distress and frustration. She wanted the Council to:
• arrange an independent review of how her complaints were handled;
• explain the status of the dropped kerb outside her property; and
• acknowledge its alleged failures.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph one.
8. The Council considered Mrs X’s concerns and responded. It explained the difficulties its enforcement officers faced due to the complexities of the circumstances and lay out of the location, including the dropped kerb.
9. The Council explained due to these issues, its officers pursued alternative solutions, rather than issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). Which included:
• Speaking with residents and seeking agreement; and
• Police mediation.
10. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns and took steps within its power to mitigate the impact on her. We will not investigate this matter as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we could not add any further meaningful outcome.
11. Mrs X also complained that some information was omitted from her Subject Access Request.
12. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about access to information. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.
13. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) holds more powers than the Ombudsman to address complaints about access to information. In this case there is no good reason for us to investigate the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating, and we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to consider her complaint about a Subject Access Request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman