Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking enforcement because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation, and it is not a good use of public resource to investigate complaints about complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to promptly deal with his complaint and has failed to provide a clear and detailed response to his complaint. He has also complained about the lack of action the Council has taken about vehicles parking on the pavement outside the entrance to his car park, causing damage to the pavement and making it difficult to leave the car park safely, without an obstructed view.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y has complained the Council has failed to stop vehicles, particularly HGVs, from parking on the pavement next to the entrance of his car park. Mr Y says this has led to damage to the pavement and has made it difficult to leave the car park safely, without an obstructed view and a potential trip hazard.

6. The Council’s complaint response says that it regularly patrols the street on which Mr Y says there is an issue and if vehicles are in contravention with the parking restrictions it will carry out enforcement action. It has also said it will review the pavement’s condition.
7. The Council’s website also has a reporting tool, where Mr Y can report illegal parking, and the Council can arrange for an officer to attend, albeit that this may not be immediate.
8. While the Council’s existing patrols may not prevent parking on the pavement entirely, its policy allows for both reactive patrols and regular, planned checks. While Mr Y may like the Council to patrol his road on a more regular basis, he can report problems for the Council to respond to. This is a proportionate policy. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
9. Further, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. In this case, Mr Y has not suffered a sufficiently serious loss, harm or distress as the result of any alleged fault. Consequently, we will not investigate.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive matter relating to the parking enforcement, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint so we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation, and it is not a good use of public resource to investigate complaints about complaint handling

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman