Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the road marking layout outside his property. We could not add to any previous investigation by the Council and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council implemented a defective Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) layout outside his property. He said it painted standard parking bay dashes directly across his dropped kerb and H-Bar. Mr X said the Council also delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X said these issues caused motorists to consistently obstruct his driveway. He said this has caused him stress, disruption and safety concerns. He wanted the Council to:
• amend the layout and remove the white dashes across his access; and
• provide financial compensation.

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. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

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. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph one.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns and arranged an inspection of the site. It told Mr X the inspection confirmed the layout was legally correct, compliant and enforceable. It explained the reasons for the specific layout and said the presence of the advisory H-bar and dropped kerb were sufficient to denote that vehicles should not park there.
9. The Council provided Mr X with contact details of the vehicle pound, so he could report any further obstructions. It confirmed it also requested:
• parking officers to increase patrols on evenings and nighttime; and
• Mr X’s concerns be considered in the post-implementation scheme review in Summer 2026, and for Mr X to be notified if any changes were identified.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns regarding the layout and arranged an inspection of the site. It explained its findings and took actions within its power to mitigate the impact on Mr X. It also confirmed it would consider his comments in its upcoming review.
11. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, there is also insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, we will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add any further meaningful outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We will not investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman