Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s refusal to amend the current parking arrangements in place around his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council should change the existing parking arrangements in place around his property so that he can more easily access it. He has proposed changes he would like the Council to make to allow ease of access and for pedestrian safety but it has told him it will not be taking any action for the foreseeable future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B, including the Council’s responses to his complaint under its complaints procedure. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Dissatisfied with the parking arrangements which exist in the vicinity of his property, and with the difficulties he has in pulling up outside it, Mr B contacted the Council.
6. The Council addressed his concerns under its complaints procedure and noted that there was a mixture of limited waiting times, disabled and loading bays and double yellow lines in place in the area. It explained that it was not the Council’s responsibility to provide either on or off-street parking for properties and that due to budgeting restrictions, it would not be processing any proposals for changes to the arrangements for the foreseeable future.
7. The Council told Mr B that it is not current Council policy to place access lines alongside double yellow lines, even though past examples of such lines might be seen in the area. It said that while Traffic Regulation Orders for parking restrictions would be considered for capital or development schemes, the Council had placed a moratorium for proposals for waiting restrictions outside of these schemes. It also advised Mr B that issues of dangerous and poorly parked vehicles were a matter for the police.

Assessment

8. While I understand Mr B’s frustration at being unable to access his property more easily, there is no evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. The Council has explained Members have decided, due to budgetary constraints, to put on hold any further consideration of changes to parking arrangements for the time being and it is not the role of the Ombudsman to review the merits of this decision no matter how strongly Mr B may disagree with it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman