Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of problems caused by pedestrians queuing on the pavement and vehicles unloading close to his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says a restaurant allows its customers to use the pavement by his property to queue. He wants the Council to regulate the use of the pavement and ban people from queuing on it. Mr X also says delivery vehicles use the area outside the rear of his property as a loading bay when delivering to local businesses. Mr X has a disability and says this is a hazard and causes access issues. He wants the Council to install kerb marks, display private loading signs, and to install a disabled access sign on the door of his property.

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 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has mediated between Mr X, other residents, and the restaurant. It advised the restaurant about how to minimise the impact of its queues on residents. The Council has decided the restaurant manages its queues effectively.
6. Public queues in busy areas are commonplace and not something for which we can hold the Council responsible. It also does not have the power to prohibit the public from using the pavement in the way Mr X wants. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
7. In response to Mr X’s report of delivery vehicles unloading by the rear of his property, the Council sent Marshals to the area for a week, who saw no need for enforcement action. Mr X feels the Council has not done enough and a week is not long enough to make a proper assessment. We cannot expect Marshals to be constantly present to monitor the situation. The Council has already arranged for enhanced patrols around the area, which is a proportionate approach. Again, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for us to become involved.
8. The Council has told Mr X it cannot install kerb lines where he would like as there are already double yellow lines. It has said it cannot display private loading signs because it would require a statutory consultation process to amend the existing Traffic Management Order. The Council does not currently have the resources to do this. There are already ‘no loading’ marks in the street, and it is listed as particularly sensitive so enforcement receives greater attention. I understand
   Mr X’s concerns, but the Council’s decision is one it is entitled to reach.
9. The Council has no power to display private loading or disabled access signs on Mr X’s property; that is a matter for the building owner. Further investigation would therefore be unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman