Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council not taking action when access to his property is blocked by parked cars. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains a Council Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) did not issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) when a vehicle was parked on double yellow lines and across the dropped kerb which provides access to the block where he lives. Mr B says this happens regularly and the Council does not enforce the parking restrictions in place. Mr B says this prevents his disabled wife and other residents from parking in the apartment block and causes traffic congestion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B and have viewed this location online.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says when the CEO attended this location, a passenger in the vehicle said the driver would be returning shortly. The driver returned shortly afterwards and the vehicle was driven away approximately 1 minute and 40 seconds after the CEO’s arrival. The Council says the CEO’s priority was to secure the removal of the obstruction as quickly as possible and the CEO used their discretion not to issue a PCN on this occasion.
6. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint. CEOs have discretion when deciding whether to issue a PCN for a parking contravention.
7. The Council has explained the factors the CEO took into account when deciding not to issue a PCN for this contravention. This was a decision for the CEO to make and it is not our role to tell the Council the CEO should not have used their discretion on this occasion.
8. Mr B may keep a record of any further incidents when access is blocked and a PCN is not issued. If needed, Mr B may then complain to the Council and to us. But, based solely on this one incident which Mr B has complained about, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
9. Also, the Council has acted reasonably by alerting the relevant team to Mr B’s concerns about parking in this location. And, by suggesting that Mr B may give permission to the Council to take enforcement action when this dropped kerb is blocked without the need for each incident to be reported first.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman